Mashiha Hrangkhal vs State Of Tripura

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J

The petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under section 494 IPC by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st 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.