CHARANJIT KAUR versus BIKRAM SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 157 · Decided: 10-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 157 
CHARANJIT KAUR 
v. 
BIKRAM SINGH & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 212of2016) 
MARCH 10, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 406, 498A - Dowry demand - Husband 
convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year -
Appeal by appellant-wife for enhancement of punishment -
C 
Respondent-husband also appealed against conviction - Sessions 
Judge dismissed the appeals filed by appellant-wife and respondent-
husband - However, in view of plea that in case the husband is sent 
to jail he may lose his government job, Sessions Judge modified 
sentence awarded to husband-respondent and permitted him to 
deposit Rs.2,50,000 payable to the appellant within one month to 
get the benefit of probation - Aggrieved appellant filed revision in 
High Court which was dismissed in a summary manner - Hence 
appeal - Held: The High Court dismissed the revision in summary 
manner only because Rs.2.50,000/- had been deposited - The 
impugned order needs to be set aside so that the ma/fer may be sent 
back to High Court for re-hearing the parties and fresh decision 
on 111erits. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 212 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3695 of 2013) 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2012 in Criminal 
Revision No. 803of2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana 
at Chandigarh. 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 213 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3694 
of2013) 
U gra Shankar Prasad, Adv. for the Appellant. 
Jayant K. Sud,AAG, Ms. Jasleen Chahal, Asst. AG, Ajay P. Tusir, 
Shree Pal Singh, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Advs. for the Respondents. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The Judgment o.fthe Court was delivered by 
SHIVAKIRTISINGH,J. I. Heard the parties. Leave granted. 
H 
157 
158 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
2. Various shades of life at times create so much impact that 
even a disinterested person gets shaken and tends to recall the cliched 
statement that truth can be stranger than fiction. At least in the Indian 
society, a wife, come what may, is perceived to be the ultimate caretaker 
of her family and particularly the husband. But cruel acts of the husband 
and the in-laws can turn the situation upside down. The essential brief 
facts of this case amply justify the aforesaid observations. 
3. The appellant is wife of respondent no. I. Harassed and tortured 
on account of greed for dowry, she was hounded out of the matrimonial 
house and was forced by such circumstances to lodge a criminal case 
under Section 498A, 406 and 1208 of the !PC when all hopes of 
compromise sought to be achieved through numerous rounds of 
Panchayat by the elders of the two families failed to yield any result and 
allegedly even ornaments and streedhan of the appellant were not 
returned to her. During trial the father-in-law expired and mother-in-
law was acquitted but the husband, respondent no. I herein was convicted 
D and awarded R.I. for one year for each of the offence under Section 
406 and 498A of the IPC and also a fine of Rs. I 000/- with a default 
clause of R.l. for 15 days. The sentences were ordered to run 
concurrently. 
E 
F 
4. The appellant preferred an appeal against the acquittal of 
mother-in-law as well as for enhancing the punishment awarded to the 
husband. State also appealed against acquittal whereas respondent no. I 
preferred appeal against his conviction. All the three appeals were 
dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and the judgment 
and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, I" Class, Phagwara dated 
30.07.2007 in R.T. No.8 of 23.5.2007 arising out of FIR No.8 dated 
8.1.2002 of P.S. Sadar, Phagwara was affirmed with a modification in 
the sentence awarded to Bikram Singh, respondent no. I. He was shown 
marked leniency in view of a plea that in case he is sent to jail he may 
lose his Government job. The Sessions Court, on the aforesaid ground 
permitted him to deposit Rs.2,50,0001- payable to the appellant within 
G one month and if such deposit is made then he was to get the benefit of 
probation bond under Section 4( I) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 
!958. 
5. Against the aforesaid judgment and order of the Additional 
Sessions Judge, Kapurthala dated 16.12.20 I 0 the appellant preferred 
H Cr!. Revision No.803of2011 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at 
CHARANJIT KAUR v. BIKRAM SINGH 
[SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
159 
Chandigarh which has been dismissed virtually in a summary manner by 
A 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.