Nirmal Dass vs State of Punjab

T.P.S. Mann, J.—Alongwith the present revision filed by convicts Nirmal Dass alias Nirmal Singh and Kishan Singh, the Court intends to dispose of Criminal Revision No. 2236 of 2008 filed by convict Ram Singh as they arise out of judgment dated 30.9.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and also the judgment and order dated 13.9.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, whereby they were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC.

The three convicts, alongwith Bakhshish Singh, were tried for offences under Sections 420/506/170 IPC on the allegations that complainant Baldev Singh was interested in sending his son Jatinderpal Singh to Germany and for that purpose, he had contacted many travel agents but in vain. In the month of October 1996, the three convicts came to his house. Ram Singh disclosed that he and his companions were dealing in the business of sending people abroad and they would take Rs. 3,00,000/- to send his son to Germany after preparing his passport. On the assurance given by the convicts, the complainant mortgaged his four killas of land for raising an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was borrowed by him from the finance company. He handed over the said amount to the convicts at the house of convict Nirmal Dass alias Nirmal Singh. The convicts then took the son of the complainant to Delhi but they failed to send him abroad. They told him on telephone that they would get him enrolled in Punjab Police as an Inspector as the Personal Assistant of the Home Minister was their friend. However, the convicts neither got employed his son as an Inspector in the police nor returned the amount, although they admitted before the Panchayat regarding the receipt of money from him. The convicts also agreed to pay interest @ 5% in case they failed to return his amount until 29.5.1997. On 9.6.1997 at about 10.00 a.m., the complainant, alongwith Amar Nath, M.C., was standing at bus stand of Mukerian where the convicts, alongwith one unknown person, who was claiming himself to be a D.S.P. and his name, later on, learnt as Bakhshish Singh were present. When the complainant asked the convicts regarding non-payment of his amount and resiling from their promise to return the amount, they started quarrelling with him. The convicts refused to return the amount and threatened the complainant to do whatever he wanted to do. Further, Bakhshish Singh, who claimed himself to be a D.S.P., threatened the complainant with dire consequences in case he again asked for return of the money. This led the complainant to move a complaint before D.S.P., Mukerian, on the basis of which FIR No. 66 dated 9.6.1997 under Sections 406/420/506/170/34 IPC was registered against the three convicts and accused Bakhshish Singh at Police Station, Mukerian. Vide judgment and order dated 13.9.2004, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya convicted the three convicts u/s 420 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. They were also convicted u/s 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. Accused Bakshish Singh was also convicted u/s 170 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

Aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the three convicts and accused Bakhshish Singh filed an appeal. Vide judgment dated 30.9.2008, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur acquitted accused Bakhshish Singh of the charge against him and set aside his conviction and sentence. However, the appeal qua the three convicts was dismissed. Still not satisfied, convicts Nirmal Dass alias Nirmal Singh and Kishan Singh filed the present revision, while convict Ram Singh filed Criminal Revision No. 2236 of 2008. The revision filed by Nirmal Dass alias Nirmal Singh and Kishan Singh was admitted on 17.10.2008 when notice regarding suspension of sentence was issued. On the next date, i.e. 24.10.2008, this Court suspended their sentences of imprisonment. Similarly, the revision filed by convict Ram Singh was admitted on 31.10.2008 and his sentence of imprisonment subsequently suspended on 7.11.2008.

During the pendency of their revision, convicts Nirmal Dass alias Nirmal Singh and Kishan Singh filed Criminal Misc. No. 16270 of 2013 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for permission to place on record the compromise deed dated 23.12.2013 entered into by them with complainant Baldev Singh. Similarly, convict Ram Singh also filed Criminal Misc. No. 15212 of 2013 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for hearing of the revision filed by him alongwith the revision filed by his co-convicts Nirmal Dass alias Nirmal Singh and Kishan Singh and also for disposal of the revision filed by him in the same terms by pleading therein that complainant Baldev Singh had also compromised the matter with him and the copy of the compromise deed stood attached with the aforementioned application filed by convicts Nirmal Dass @ Nirmal Singh and Kishan Singh. Both the applications came up for hearing on 21.3.2013, when after hearing counsel for the convicts, notice was issued for today.

Complainant Baldev Singh has come present in the Court and has got recorded his separate statement, which reads as under:-

Stated that on the basis of statement made by me, FIR No. 66 dated 9.6.1997 was registered at Police Station, Mukerian, under Sections 406, 420, 506, 170/34 IPC against Ram Singh, Kishan Singh, Nirmal Dass alias Nirmal Singh and Bakshish Singh. The trial Court convicted and sentenced all the four accused. However, in appeal filed by them, Bakshish Singh was acquitted, whereas the conviction and sentence of the remaining three accused was upheld. The convicted accused then filed the revision petitions in this Court, which stand admitted and the convicts granted the concession of bail.

At the intervention of the respectables of the area, the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. During settlement of the matter no threat was extended to any of the parties nor anyone of them coerced to do so. In fact, settlement was arrived at by all of us, especially me, out of our own free will and volition. I have seen the compromise deed dated 23.1.2013. I identify my signatures affixed thereupon.

I have no objection if the benefit arising out of the compromise arrived at between the parties is extended to the convicts.

The offence u/s 420 IPC is lawfully compoundable by the person who stands cheated, whereas the offence u/s 506 IPC compoundable by the person intimidated. Further, for compounding the offence u/s 420 IPC, the permission of the Court is required, whereas no such permission is needed to compound the offence u/s 506 IPC. However, when the compounding takes place at an appellate or revisional stage, permission of the Court is required to compound the offence u/s 506 IPC.

After going through the statement suffered by complainant Baldev Singh, this Court is of the considered view that he has amicably resolved the dispute with the three convicts. The settlement arrived at is result of his free will and volition. Accordingly, he has expressed no objection if the benefit arising out of the compromise arrived at between the parties is extended to the three convicts. For these reasons, this Court has no other option but to allow the complainant to compound the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC with the convicts.

Resultantly, complainant Baldev Singh is, hereby, allowed to compound the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC with the three convicts. As a natural corollary thereof, Criminal Revision No. 2100 of 2008 filed by convicts Nirmal Dass alias Nirmal Singh and Kishan Singh and Criminal Revision no. 2236 of 2008 filed by convict Ram Singh are accepted and the three convicts are acquitted of the charges against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged.