Bombay High Court
Sk Rauf Sk Usman & Anr vs State Of Maha on 7 April, 2016
Bench: N.W. Sambre
369.03crrevn
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 369 OF 2003
1. Sk. Rauf Sk. Usman,
Age: 22 years, Occ: Labour,
2. Masum Ali Sk. Buchanu,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Labour,
Both R/o. Nageshwar Colony,
Plot No. 8, Gat No. 446, Opposite
Poultry Farm, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon.
ig ...Applicants
versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
.....
Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for applicants
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.P.P. for respondent
.....
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 7th APRIL, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Based on the First Information Report at Exhibit-36
lodged by one Gulnarbi w/o Sk. Raut, present applicants and other
accused persons were prosecuted for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The prosecution story against the applicants is that after
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:24:40 :::
369.03crrevn
-2-
marriage with applicant No.1, family members used to beat and
illtreat prosecutrix and subjected her to cruelty on the ground of
demand of Rs.10,000/- from her parents.
3. After the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed
and the prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined in all
four witnesses.
4.
By the judgment dated 14/09/2000, learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon convicted the accused persons for
an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to
suffer simple imprisonment for three months. So far as applicant No.2
is concerned, he was convicted for an offence punishable under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
5. In appeal, applicant No. 2 is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, however,
conviction under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code against the applicants herein is maintained.
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:24:40 :::
369.03crrevn
-3-
6. In this background, Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel for the
applicants invited my attention to the observations made by learned
appellate Court in paragraph-9 of the judgment, which reads thus:
"9. I heard Adv. Shri. H.P. Suryawanshi, for the
appellants and A.P.P. Shri. V.H. Patil, for the State. At the
very out-set, it is pertinent to note that the original
complainant and all these appellants filed an application
(ex.12) to the effect that since last 16 months, original
complainant is residing with her husband-appellant No.1
and one son is also begotten to her. Hence, she wants to
compromise the matter against her husband and other
appellants. During the course of arguments, A.P.P. relied
on the authority of our High Court cited in Vasudeo K.
Dalal Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2003(2)
B.Cr.C. 558. But it is an order passed under Sec. 482
Cr.P.Code, under inherent powers of the Hon'ble High
Court. Moreover, the parties in the above cited matter are
governed by Hindu Law, and they have settled their
matrimonial dispute before the Civil Court and
compromise in Cri. Case was an off-shoot of settlement in
the civil matters, and the Hon'ble High Court has quashed
the proceeding under its inherent powers. Thus, the facts
of above cited authority are not applicable to this case as
the parties are Mohammedan and this Court has no
inherent powers to quash and set aside the proceedings
as it is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.Code.
However, offence punishable under Sec. 323 I.P. Code is
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:24:40 :::
369.03crrevn
-4-
compoundable. Hence, I allow Exh. 22 to the extent that
offence under Sec. 323 I.P. Code proved against appellant
No. 4 Masumali Sk. Buchanu is compounded and he is
acquitted. However, exh. 12 is rejected as far as the
offence under Section 498-A r.w. 34 of I.P. Code is
concerned."
7. According to him, present applicants were behind the
bars in the present case for almost 15 days and this Court, in view of
above referred settlement, may take lenient view, as parties have
started cohabiting together.
8. He has also taken me through the observations made by
both the Courts i.e. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon and
Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, while dealing with the appeal.
9. Learned A.P.P. has not disputed the observations in
paragraph-9 being part of record, however, according to him, benefit
of Probation of Offenders Act should be given to the applicants.
10. Having taken overall view of the matter and having
regard to the observations made in paragraph-9 of the appellate
Court judgment, in my opinion, in view of the provisions of Sections 3
and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, benefit of the same should
be given to the applicants. Hence, the following order.
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:24:40 :::
369.03crrevn
-5-
:ORDER:
(i) The present applicants shall appear before the Probation
Officer within period of four weeks from today and shall execute bond
that for remaining period of punishment, they shall maintain law and
order and shall not indulge in any similar type of offence.
(ii) The applicants shall report to the Probation Officer once in
every three months.
11. Criminal Revision Application, as such, stands disposed
of, in above terms.
[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ]
Tupe/07.04.16
