Criminal Revision No.230 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.230 of 1992 Date of decision: March 11, 2008 Gurbalwinder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sandeep Mann, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Baljit Kaur, complainant filed complaint under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC against her husband Gurbalwinder Singh, present petitioner. She stated that her parents had given dowry to their capacity and her istridhan has been misappropriated by the petitioner. Details of articles were given and it was stated that the articles were worth Rs.1,84,224/-. It has been further stated that articles were entrusted to Gurbalwinder Singh (husband); Kartar Singh, Harbhajan Kaur and Surinder Kaur (father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant respectively). As per the counsel for the petitioner, matrimonial dispute between the parties and filing of divorce petition by petitioner are stated to be reasons for which the present complaint has been filed. Counsel Criminal Revision No.230 of 1992 2 wanted this Court to believe that the present complaint was a counter- blast to the divorce petition. Learned trial Court, after analyzing the evidence, found that the scooter was entrusted to the present petitioner Gurbalwinder Singh. This fact has been denied by the petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has also examined Sher Singh DW-1 and Jora Singh DW-2 to prove that no scooter was given to the petitioner. Counsel is unable to state the present matrimonial status between the parties, whether they have parted by way of divorce or they are living together or their marital discord persists. Both the courts below have found petitioner to be guilty of offence under Section 406 IPC. Petitioner has undergone about a week after he was taken into custody. The marriage was performed on 17th February, 1982. Complaint was lodged on 6th December, 1988. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 25th March, 1992. 26 years after the marriage and about 20 years after filing of the complaint, this Court having found petitioner to be guilty of the offence is to decide the question of sentence. Husband, who has misappropriated istridhan, deserves no sympathy. But at the same time, protracted trial of 20 years, 26 years of marriage, are the factors which are to be taken into consideration. Another reason which causes anguish to this Court is whether by sending the petitioner behind bars, the poor wife will be able to get something. A helpless lady, after 26 years of marriage, whether will be satisfied by sending the petitioner behind the bars or she can be compensated in some way so that she is able to sustain herself. Taking these two factors into consideration, I am of the considered opinion that over and above, whatever maintenance alimony she may be getting or whatever she may have got in a lumpsum settlement, if any arrived, on deposit of Rs.50,000/- within three months Criminal Revision No.230 of 1992 3 from today by the petitioner, which is to be disbursed to the complainant wife, petitioner’s sentence shall be reduced to already undergone. Failure on the part of petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- shall render the present revision petition having been dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge March 11, 2008. rps