2014 (7) TMI 1345 - SC - Indian Laws

Offences punishable Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Compounding of offences - HELD THAT - Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable. Section 4 of the Dowry Act is also non-compoundable. It is not necessary to state that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded by a Court. While considering the request for compounding of offences the Court has to strictly follow the mandate of Section 320 of the Code. It is, therefore, not possible to permit compounding of offences Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Act. However, if there is a genuine compromise between husband and wife, criminal complaints arising out of matrimonial discord can be quashed, even if the offences alleged therein are non-compoundable, because such offences are personal in nature and do not have repercussions on the society unlike heinous offences like murder, rape etc. In this case, the Appellant is convicted Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. He is convicted Under Section 4 of the Dowry Act and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. Substantive sentences are to run concurrently. Even though the Appellant and Respondent No. 2-wife have arrived at a compromise, the order of conviction cannot be quashed on that ground because the offences involved are non-compoundable. However, in such a situation if the court feels that the parties have a real desire to bury the hatchet in the interest of peace, it can reduce the sentence of the accused to the sentence already undergone - sentence of the Appellant can be reduced to sentence already undergone by him. Whether a case for reduction of sentence is made out particularly when the Appellant has undergone only seven days sentence out of six months sentence imposed on him? - HELD THAT - The Appellant has offered to pay a sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- to Respondent No. 2-wife as compensation. A demand draft drawn in the name of Respondent No. 2 is brought to the Court. As directed by us even litigation costs of ₹ 25,000/- has been deposited by the Appellant in the Court. Respondent No. 2-wife has appeared in this Court on more than one occasion and requested this Court to take compromise into consideration and pass appropriate orders - the trial court had acquitted the Appellant. Though the Sessions Court reversed the order and convicted the Appellant for two years, the High Court reduced the sentence to six months. The Appellant and Respondent No. 2 were married in 2007. About seven years have gone by. Considering all these circumstances, in the interest of peace and amity, the Appellant's sentence must be reduced to sentence already undergone by him. The conviction of the Appellant Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Under Section 4 of the Dowry Act is maintained but the sentence awarded to the Appellant is reduced to sentence already undergone by him, subject to the condition that the Appellant pays a sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- to Respondent No. 2-wife as compensation - Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Compounding of non-compoundable offenses.
3. Reduction of sentence based on compromise between parties.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, originally Accused No. 3, was tried for offenses under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with his parents. After being acquitted by the Magistrate, the Sessions Court convicted him and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court set aside the conviction of his parents but confirmed the appellant's conviction, reducing his sentence to six months and a fine on each count. The appellant appealed against this judgment.

2. The appellant sought to compound the offenses by offering to pay compensation to his wife in lieu of imprisonment. However, Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Act are non-compoundable offenses. The court highlighted that non-compoundable offenses cannot be compounded by a court. Nevertheless, a genuine compromise between husband and wife in cases of matrimonial discord can lead to the quashing of criminal complaints, even for non-compoundable offenses, if it serves the interest of justice.

3. The court considered the appellant's request for a reduction in sentence due to the compromise with his wife. Despite the non-compoundable nature of the offenses, the court had the discretion to reduce the sentence if parties genuinely desired to reconcile. In this case, the court found the compromise to be genuine, with the appellant offering compensation and both parties requesting leniency. Considering the circumstances, including the time elapsed since the marriage and the appellant's willingness to settle, the court decided to reduce the appellant's sentence to the time already served, subject to the condition of paying compensation to the wife.

Overall, the appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence to time served, contingent on the appellant paying compensation to his wife. The court discharged any existing bail bonds in light of the settlement.