Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Paramasivam & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Namakkal & Another - Respondents
Crl.R.C. No. 1496 of 2011
Decided On : 05-07-2018
For the Petitioners:R. Nalliyappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Thankira, Government Advocate (Crl.Side), In person.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 498(A), 494, 506(ii), 352 and 323 , 457, 426, 304 (B), 320 and 307 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 4 - Section 4 - De-facto Complainant - Cruelty, physically assaulted - Permanent injunction - First petitioner and de-facto Complainant got married on and after marriage de-facto Complainant started living with petitioners as a joint family - Out of wedlock two children were born and after sometime de-facto Complainant and the first petitioner started living separately - It is further case of prosecution that second petitioner demanded dowry and she did not allow de-facto Complainant to live with first petitioner - First petitioner started developing illegal intimacy with the another woman, who was originally arrayed as A-4 in FIR - Second and third petitioners were also committing cruelty on de-facto Complainant and were preventing her from living with first petitioner - Thus, it is case of prosecution that all three petitioners together committed cruelty, physically assaulted with de-facto Complainant demanded dowry and also threatened her and therefore an FIR was registered in Crime No. for an offence – Held, Insofar as sentence is concerned, learned counsel would submit that this Court can take into consideration, subsequent compromise between parties and pass appropriate orders - Learned counsel also brought to notice of Court about fact that third petitioner died during the pendency of the proceedings and this was recorded by this Court and an order was passed to effect that proceedings have abated insofar as third petitioner is concerned - First petitioner was in fact having an illegal intimacy with A-4 and de-facto Complainant was subjected to cruelty - It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that Panchayat was held in presence of PW-6 and PW-7 in which A-4 had demanded a sum in order to stop having contacts with first petitioner - Both Courts below have assessed oral evidence of witnesses and have come to conclusion that there was cruelty committed against de-facto Complainant both by conduct and by demand of dowry - This Court sitting in revisional jurisdiction cannot reassess evidence unless it is shown that findings are perverse - Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with order of conviction as confirmed in appeal - Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed by modifying sentence to extent indicated above.
1. The Revision Petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.16 of 2010, dated 30.08.2011, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.165 of 2006, have filed the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the de-facto Complainant got married on 20.10.2001 and after marriage the de-facto Complainant started living with the petitioners as a joint family. Out of the wedlock two children were born and after sometime the de-facto Complainant and the first petitioner started living separately. It is the further case of the prosecution that the second petitioner demanded dowry and she did not allow the de-facto Complainant to live with the first petitioner. The first petitioner started developing illegal intimacy with the another woman, who was originally arrayed as A-4 in the FIR. It is the further case of the prosecution that the first petitioner was abusing and assaulting the de-facto Complainant and after sometime during February 2006, the first petitioner even got married to the lady with whom he had illicit intimacy. The second and third petitioners were also committing cruelty on the de-facto Complainant and were preventing her from living with the first petitioner. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that all the three petitioners together committed cruelty, physically assaulted with the de-facto Complainant demanded dowry and also threatened her, and therefore, an FIR was registered in Crime No.10 of 2006 for an offence under Section 498(A), 494, 506(ii), 352 and 323 IPC r/w Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The case was investigated by the respondent police and a Final Report came to be filed against the petitioners and independent charges were framed against the petitioners.
4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4.
5. The Trial Court on consideration of the materials placed before the Court, was pleased to pass an order dated 04.01.2010, convicting the petitioners for an offence under Section 498(A), 457 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and sentenced them to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- [Rupees One Thousand Only] and also convicted the petitioners and A-4 under Section 426 IPC and imposed a sentence of three months Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/- each [Rupees Two Fifty Only]. The said sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is seen from the records that in the mean time A-4 has expired.
6. The petitioners aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.16 of 2010 and the Appellate Court by an order dated 30.08.2011 was pleased to confirm the order of the Trial Court.
7. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 27.06.2018, the 1st petitioner husband and the de-facto complainant- wife were present before the Court and they through their counsel jointly filed a Memorandum of Compromise. This Court personally enquired the husband and wife as to the present status of their relationship and both of them informed this Court that on the intervention of the elders of the family and considering the welfare of both the families, both of them decided to bury the hatchet and are living a peaceful and happy life from the year 2012 onwards. It was informed to the Court that from the year 2012 till date they have been living as husband and wife happily without any complaints along with the children. The same stand was reiterated by them in the Memorandum of Compromise that was filed before the Court and it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the parties have settled the matter amicably outside the Court, the revision may be allowed by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below.
8. Before going into the merits of the case, in order to appreciate the findings of the courts below which have convict
