Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Prakash Chand S/o Shri Bhagat Ram – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 45 of 2012, Cr. M.P. No. 2167 of 2021
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 – Section 320 (6) r/w 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 451, 452, 323, 324, 325 r/w 34 – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment - House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - suit for partition - Facts of case, as emerge from record are that police presented challan against accused for their having committed offence punishable under Sections 451, 452, 323, 324, 325 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, in court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, alleging therein that deceased i.e. mother of accused, was having four daughters and one son - Her husband had bequeathed four kanals of land in her favour and remaining land was bequeathed in favour of accused, son of the complainant - Accused was residing in house belonging to husband of complainant and complainant was residing in house of one Ravan Singh, son of her daughter - A suit for partition was filed by complainant, which was pending disposal before the revenue authorities - Demarcation was conducted and one land was found to be belonging to the complainant, which was given to her by means of a will - Allegedly, accused entered in the said land and started abusing the complainant - He was accompanied by petitioner No. 2, wife of accused - When the complainant requested the accused not to abuse her, the accused entered in her courtyard and inflicted a blow of “Daraat” on her head and on her left leg, as a consequence of which, she suffered injuries.
Findings of the Court:
Court specifically observed that “this is a case where continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against society. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between two sides.” In instant case, offences allegedly having been committed by petitioner-accused are neither serious nor heinous offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. rather offences allegedly committed by petitioner-accused are private in nature and do not have any serious impact on society - Apart from above, it clearly emerges from statement of complainant that as of today parties have amicably settled matter interse them - Complainant has categorically stated before this Court that she has entered into a compromise with petitioner-accused of her own free will and accord, without any pressure or influence of any kind whatsoever and as such, she does not wish to prosecute case any further - Hence this Court after hearing complainant as well as submissions made in application filed under Section 482 is of view that instant matter can be ordered to be compounded while exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Result: Petition is disposed of
ORDER :
1. Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. lays challenge to judgment dated 31.12.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 07-J/2006, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.1.2006, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 21-II/2002, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioners-accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 452 of the IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as per description given herein-below:
| S. No. | Sections | Imprisonment | Fine |
| 1. | Section 452 read with Section 34 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. | Rs. 2,000/- |
| In default of aforesaid payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. | |||
| 2. | Section 325 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years. | Rs. 2,000/- |
| In default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. | |||
| 3. | Section 323 IPC | Simple imprisonment for a period of six months. | Rs. 1,000/- |
| In default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. |
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that police presented challan against the accused for their having committed offence punishable under Sections 451, 452, 323, 324, 325 of IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, in the court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. alleging therein that deceased Nikko Devi (since deceased) i.e. mother of the accused Prakash Chand, was having four daughters and one son. Her husband had bequeathed four kanals of land in her favour and remaining land was bequeathed in favour of the accused Prakash Chand, son of the complainant. Prakash Chand was residing in the house belonging to the husband of the complainant and complainant was residing in the house of one Ravan Singh, son of her daughter. A suit for partition was filed by the complainant, which was pending disposal before the revenue authorities. Demarcation was conducted and one kanal land was found to be belonging to the complainant, which was given to her by means of a will. Allegedly, accused Prakash Chand entered in the said land on 29.4.2001 at about 11:00 AM and started abusing the complainant. He was accompanied by petitioner No. 2-Savitri Devi, wife of the accused Prakash Chand. When the complainant requested the accused not to abuse her, the accused entered in her courtyard and inflicted a blow of “Daraat” on her head and on her left leg, as a consequence of which, she suffered injuries.
3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 12.1.2006, held the petitioners-accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 452, 323, 324 and 325 of IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC and accordingly, sentenced them as per the description given herein above.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 31.12.2011, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioners-accused have approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein their acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below.
5. Vide order dated 7.3.2012, this Court, while suspending the substantive sentence imposed by the court below, admitted th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
