STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, I have also gone through the records of this case.

(2.) In order to properly appreciate the case, it is necessary to state a few facts in the peculiar background and circumstances of the case. A written complaint was made by one Smt. Ranjana Kumari, wife of Kartar Singh, who is son of respondents Jai Singh and Brahmi Devi. The case of the complainant in the plaint dated 23-12-1994 addressed by her to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur was that she was married to Kartar Singh 1 1/2 years ago and a child is there from this wedlock. According to her, the respondents along with one Babli, son of Mehar Singh, started harassing her by saying that her parents have given very less dowry. At such point of time, a demand of Rs. 10,000/- was made, otherwise she would be done to death. This demand was fulfilled by her by bringing Rs. 10,000/- from her parents and the same was handed over to Kartar Singh, respondent. In these circumstances, peace prevailed for some time. However, again they started unnecessarily beating her and further compelled her to bring more dowry. Again she came to her parental house and on 1-12-1994, a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- was withdrawn by her father from Co-operative bank and this amount was also handed over to respondent No. 1 Kartar Singh, but the lust for dowry of the respondents was not satisfied. She had even gone to the extent of complaining that at one point of time, the respondents had entered into a bargain for selling her of at Swarghat but she having come to know in time, saved herself by going to the house of her relations. Again on 19-12-1994, Kerosene oil has been stated to be sprinkled on her and respondents were about to set her on fire when she ran away from the house. However, she was caught hold of by them and her clothes drenched in Kerosene oil were taken back by them. Again on 22-12-1994, the respondents gave beatings to her and put her in taxi along with her daughter and left her on road of her parental house after pushing them from taxi and throwing her as well as her minor daughter there. It was in these circumstances that from the respondents she apprehended danger to her life and she prayed for initiating action against the respondents. On the basis of said complaint, F.I.R. No. 138 of 1994 under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Kot-Kehloor. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed under Sections 498-A/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, who vide order dated 21-9-1995, committed the respondents to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur since the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the said Court. The respondents appeared in the Court of Session on 29-9-1995. When the matter finally came up on 30-1-1996 before the Court of Session at Bilaspur, two applications were filed i.e. one by Smt. Ranjana Kumar (Ex. PA) and another by the respondents (Ex. PB). Both these applications are dated 30th January, 1996. Complainant Ranjana Kumari, in her application (Ex. PA) stated that respondent-Kartar Singh is her husband. She had gone to her parental house at village Bamta, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, when her father enquired from her as to whether she had adjusted in village, as she was resident of city. On such inquiry, she had informed her father that it will take some time for her to settle in village. At such point of time on account of some mis-understanding, her father lodged a report in police whereas she had no intention to lodge any such case. In these circumstances, she had prayed that she had no intention to lodge the complaint. Statement of complainant-Ranjana Kumari was recorded on the same date i.e. 30-1-1996 wherein amongst other things, she had stated on oath that she is living peacefully at her in-laws place and she has given birth to a child who is about 5 months old, she had shown her willingness to stay at her in-laws place and she did not want to continue with the case since she wants to keep good relations with her in-laws so that there is no future problem in her family life. Statement of father of the complainant-Ranjana Kumari was also recorded, who had acknowledged the statement of his daughter and had further pointed out that his daughter as well as her children are being looked after well and he was satisfied that they would be looked after properly in future also. Keeping in view the future of the girl, he sought relief of the Court for compounding the offence. Statements of the respondents were also recorded, who admitted the factum of the settlement and further assured the Court that she would not be harassed in future.

(3.) In the aforesaid circumstances, the Sessions Judge below vide order dated 30-1-1996 allowed the prayer and in terms of compromise, Ex. PB and statements of the parties, he allowed the offences to be compounded and discharged the respondents. It is this order of discharge which is impugned by the State in the present revision petition. Before taking up the case, at this stage, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 320 Sub-Section (1), certain offences are enumerated under the Indian Penal Code and in column 3 thereof it is also stated as to the persons by whom such offence may be compounded. Under Sub-Section (1), it is evident that the offences can be compounded without leave of the Court. Whereas on the other hand, under Sub-Section (2) of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, offences are enumerated as also the persons by whom those may be compounded but are compoundable with the permission of the Court before which any such prosecution for such an offence is pending. Thus, it is evident that legislature in its wisdom has specifically carved out two situations, one where the offences are compoundable without the leave of the Court and others, though are compoundable, but with the permission of such Court where the prosecution is pending for such offences. Section 320 Sub-Section (9) is to the following effect :-