Crl.Revn.No.726 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.726 of 2000 Date of Decision: March 26, 2008 Dharinder Kumar and another .......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Baljeet Puri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... RAJESH BINDAL, J. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging their conviction under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Dharinder Kumar was convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days, whereas Bimla Sharma was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days. Both accused were also Crl.Revn.No.726 of 2000 -2- convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days. In appeal, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was upheld vide order dated 11.2.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the petitioners were directed to be taken into custody. Notice of motion in the present case was issued on 21.9.2000. Thereafter, the case remained pending on various dates of hearing. On 31.10.2001, this Court passed the following order: “Although the petitioners have been released from jail after giving remissions, yet the counsel wants to argue the case on merits. Let lower Court records be summoned for 11.12.2001.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the registration of the FIR on 25.5.1989 against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the parties had amicably settled their dispute and a petition which was filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Ms. Anita Sharma was converted into a petition under Section 13- B of the Act and vide decree, dated 17.9.1991, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent even after condoning the period of six months. The marriage in the present case was solemnized on 12.10.1987. A baby girl was born out of wedlock on 26.8.1988. However, due to certain differences, the parties were living separately since May 1989. Immediately thereafter, an FIR was got registered on 25.5.1989, which after trial, resulted into the conviction of the petitioners. There was litigation pending between the parties with regard to the maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Crl.Revn.No.726 of 2000 -3- Procedure which was also settled by way of compromise dated 8.3.2004 and a copy thereof has been placed on record as Annexure A2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in Kiran Tulshiram Ingale Vs. Smt.Anupama P.Gaikwad & Ors., 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 842 (Bombay) submitted that once the entire disputes between the parties have been settled, the conviction of the petitioners be set aside. In Kiran Tulshiram Ingale's case (supra), the matter was referred to be heard by a Division Bench for consideration of the following two issues: (1) “The decision of the Apex Court, in B.S.Joshi's case is not an authority to hold that offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is a compoundable offence, which can be compounded with the permission of the Court.” (2) “Whether it is open for the High Court to quash the criminal action in exercise of inherent powers even in a case which has ended with an order of conviction after trial.” After referring to the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888 and G.V.Rao Vs. L.H.V.Prasad, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 290, the Division Bench opined as under: “The Single Judge felt that the powers of quashing cannot be exercised if the criminal proceedings have resulted in conviction, as in the present case. We are not in agreement with these observations. If the prime object of the judgment of Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi's case is to allow the parties to settle their matrimonial disputes either way, then conviction,in our opinion, cannot and should not come in the way. It is a fact on record that the trial Court convicted the accused. The Crl.Revn.No.726 of 2000 -4- parties thereafter mutually obtained divorce. This fact was taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge. But he expressed his inability to compound the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code because he had no powers to do so. He further granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that firstly in this case the parties have compromised even after conviction and, the object of compromise to live happily, peacefully though separately after divorce. The Sessions Court has taken cognizance of this compromise and has reduced the conviction and altered it to a bond under the Probation of Offenders Act. Secondly, conviction by the first Court is not end of the matter and appeal therefrom is continuation of proceeding and if a revision is filed, in case conviction is maintained, altered, reduced, then the High Court in revision does get power to pass effective orders in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court. Conviction does not attain finality if the appeal is filed and, if the revision is filed against conviction by appellate Court, there also all issues become opened before the High Court. Since the Supreme Court had approached this issue with a broader perspective and the Issue was whether it is permissible to quash criminal proceedings (Stress Added) or complaint or FIR and in our opinion, even the criminal proceedings can be quashed irrespective of whether there is conviction or otherwise. We, therefore, answer both the Issues as under: “Ans. to Issue No.1:- The decision of the Supreme Court gives powers to the High Court to permit compounding of matrimonial offences and the High Court has powers to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.” “Ans. to Issue No.2:- Even in case of conviction, inherent powers can be exercised and criminal proceedings can be quashed.” Crl.Revn.No.726 of 2000 -5- In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that the High Court, by exercising inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.” In Santokh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 600, the conviction of the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside by this Court on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Keeping in view the fact that all the disputes between the parties have been settled and after separation they are living happily, above pronunciation of law and invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I deem it appropriate to set aside the conviction of the petitioners. It is ordered accordingly. The petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. ( RAJESH BINDAL ) March 26, 2008 JUDGE SRM