TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. However, if there is a genuine compromise between husband and wife, criminal complaints arising out of matrimonial discord can be quashed, even if the offences alleged therein are non-compoundable, because such offences are personal in nature and do not have repercussions on the society unlike heinous offences like murder, rape etc. In this case, the Appellant is convicted Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. He is convicted Under Section 4 of the Dowry Act and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. Substantive sentences are to run concurrently. Even though the Appellant and Respondent No. 2-wife have arrived at a compromise, the order of conviction cannot be quashed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Code and Under Section 4 of the Dowry Act is maintained but the sentence awarded to the Appellant is reduced to sentence already undergone by him, subject to the condition that the Appellant pays a sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- to Respondent No. 2-wife as compensation - Appeal allowed in part. - Criminal Appeal No. 1498 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8795 of 2012) - - - Dated:- 21-7-2014 - Ranjana Prakash Desai and N.V. Ramana, JJ. For the Appearing Parties : Prabhash Kumar Yadav, Bankey Bihari, Dushyant Parashar, Vijay Singh Chauhan, Nachiketa Joshi, Sudhakar Joshi, S. Gowthaman, C.K.R. Lenin Sekar, S. Sethu Mahendran, K. Paari Vendhan, Anil Kumar Jha, Chand Kiran, Aftab Ali Khan, Kailash Chand, C.D. Singh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conviction and sentence of original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the father and mother of the Appellant. The conviction of the Appellant was, however, confirmed. His sentence was reduced to six months and fine of ₹ 500/- on each count. Both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by this judgment the Appellant filed the present appeal. 4. On 21/1/2013 the Appellant sought permission to implead the complainant i.e. his wife Reena as Respondent No. 2. A statement was made that the Appellant was willing to pay monetary compensation to his wife in lieu of substantive sentence of imprisonment. Permission to implead the complainant-wife Reena was granted. The Appellant was directed to deposit ₹ 25,000/- a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecessary to state that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded by a Court. While considering the request for compounding of offences the Court has to strictly follow the mandate of Section 320 of the Code. It is, therefore, not possible to permit compounding of offences Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Act. However, if there is a genuine compromise between husband and wife, criminal complaints arising out of matrimonial discord can be quashed, even if the offences alleged therein are non-compoundable, because such offences are personal in nature and do not have repercussions on the society unlike heinous offences like murder, rape etc. (See Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303). If th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Code and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime, there was no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime. The observation of this Court must be read obviously in the context of a non-compoundable offence Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is trite that a non-compoundable offence cannot be compounded at any stage (See Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303). However, a compoundable offence can be compounded in view of a compromise, if the Court finds it proper to do so even after conviction if the appeal is pending. 8. In this case, the Appellant is convicted Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. He is convicted Under Section 4 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name of Respondent No. 2 is brought to the Court. As directed by us even litigation costs of ₹ 25,000/- has been deposited by the Appellant in the Court. Respondent No. 2-wife has appeared in this Court on more than one occasion and requested this Court to take compromise into consideration and pass appropriate orders. Learned Counsel for the parties have requested us to take a kindly view of the matter. The affidavit filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh opposing the prayer of the parties does not impress us. 10. We must also note that the trial court had acquitted the Appellant. Though the Sessions Court reversed the order and convicted the Appellant for two years, the High Court reduced the sentence to six months. The Appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
