Tripura High Court
Sri Mashiha Hrangkhal vs The State Tripura on 1 October, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
I.A No. 01 of 2020
In Crl. Rev. P. No. 48 of 2016
Sri Mashiha Hrangkhal . . . . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Tripura . . . . . Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K. Nath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Order
01/10/2021
The petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under
section 494 IPC by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class,
Kamalpur, Unakoti Judicial District by judgment and order dated
29.03.2016 passed in case No. GR 220 of 2014 [PRC 248 of 2014] and
he was sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with
default stipulation.
The convict challenged the order in appeal in court of the
Additional Sessions Judge at Kamalpur in the erstwhile Unakoti Judicial
District.
By the judgment and order dated 15.06.2016 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2016, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kamalpur, Unakoti Judicial District affirmed the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the petitioner and directed him to surrender
before the trial court to serve out the sentence.
The petitioner has challenged the said judgment in this
criminal revision petition. During pendency of the petition, the parties
have joined together and filed this I.A on 24.02.2020 seeking
permission of the court for compounding the offence. In paragraph 10
of the petition the parties have declared as under:
"10. That, during the pendency of the Crl. Rev. P
48/2016, the Petitioners have arrived at amicable
settlement without any coercion and influence by
anybody else. The Petitioner no 2, presently, has no
grievance against the Petitioner no 1 herein. The
Petitioner no 2 in the spirit of forget and forgive has
settled the matter with the Petitioner no 1 and the
Petitioner no 1 is also repentant for his past conduct.
The Petitioner no 1 expresses his regret. Keeping in view
of the future of the 3 children and specially the marital
prospect of their daughter, the Petitioners have decided
to give a quietus to the dispute out of which the present
Revision Petition has been arises."
Allegation against the convict petitioner is that he contracted
2nd marriage during the lifetime of his wife Smt. Golapi Hrangkhal. Said
Golapi Hrangkhal appeared in the trial court and supported her
allegations. In their I.A, the parties have stated that they have amicably
settled the matter. The convict petitioner as well as the complainant
wife Smt. Golapi Hrangkhal are present before this court in person when
their petition is taken up for hearing. They have also brought their son
and daughter to the court. The complainant wife of the petitioner as
well as their children want the court to accord permission to Smt. Golapi
Hrangkhal to compound the offence to prevent her husband from
suffering the sentence.
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior advocate appearing
along with Mr. K. Nath, learned advocate for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P representing the State respondent.
Under the table provided under Sub Section (2) of Section
320 Cr.P.C, Section 494 IPC is a compoundable offence which can be
compounded with the permission of the court by the husband or wife of
the person so marrying. Here the husband is convicted and sentenced
for contracting 2nd marriage during lifetime of his first wife. Therefore,
his wife is competent to compound the offence with the permission of
the court. Sub Section (6) of Section 320 Cr.P.C provides that High
Court or Court of Sessions acting in the exercise of its powers of
revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C may allow any person to compound
any offence which such person is competent to compound under this
section.
In view of Sub Section (6) of Section 320 Cr.P.C, the High
Court is, therefore, empowered to accord permission for compounding
the offence while exercising powers of revision under section 401
Cr.P.C.
I have heard the convict petitioner as well as his complainant
wife and children.
I am convinced that the aggrieved wife has made up her
mind to compound the offence in exercise of her free will without any
kind of coercion. Therefore, she is permitted to compound the offence
with her convict husband.
In terms of the above, the I.A stands allowed and disposed
of.
Accused stands acquitted.
JUDGE
Rudradeep
