Court cannot Loose Sight of the Adage that Every Sinner has a Future & Every Saint has a Past [Case Law]

Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 327, 386 & 309 - Quashing of Proceedings - Son is being prosecuted at the instance of father - court cannot loose sight of the adage that every sinner has a future and every saint has a past - trial court shall afford an opportunity to reform.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

10/09/2018

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5522/2018

Madhur Mohan Sabu v. State of Rajasthan

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta; For Respondent (s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP for State Mr. K.N. Bhatt, for respondent No.2

O R D E R

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No.1375/2011 pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan.

In the present case, son is being prosecuted at the instance of father. Respondent No.2-complainant father had lodged a FIR bearing No.322/2011 at Police Station Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur City (North) for offences under Sections 327, 386, 309 IPC. In the FIR father stated that from last few years, behaviour of his son with the parents was not good. Wife of the son had given him divorce and he has suffered losses in business, as a result of which, he was evicted from the shop taken on rent. Complainant father further stated that he had disowned his son, after assuring that he will behave properly, son started living with the parents. On one day son made an attempt to cut vein near the wrist and thus, made an attempt to commit suicide. He also demanded huge amount from the father.

After investigation, the investigating agency filed chargesheet against the petitioner son. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 327, 386 and 309 IPC.

Present petition has been filed for quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise.

Man Mohan Sabu, complainant-respondent No.2 father, is present in court. He has also filed an affidavit before this court. The said affidavit is taken on record.

Complainant father in his affidavit has stated that since wife of the petitioner had given him divorce and he had suffered financial losses in business, he was suffering from acute depression and therefore, he was mentally ill and was not aware about his welfare.

In the present case, evidence before the trial court has been recorded. Now, case is fixed for final arguments. At this juncture, parents have reconciled to the past misdeeds of their son and being elders of the family, have forgiven him.

Shri Man Mohan Sabu, complainant-father, who is present in court, has submitted that except parents, there is no other person available in the family to lookafter the son and since due to mental illness he has lost the control over himself and was suffering from acute depression, he was not aware about the consequences of his acts of omission and commission. Complainant-respondent No.2 father has submitted that for last 2-3 years they as guardian, have watched the conduct of their son and now they are sanguine that he will behave as a civilized man in the society in future.

Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri K.N. Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent No.2, have prayed to magnanimity of the court to give an opportunity to the petitioner to reform himself.

This court cannot loose sight of the adage that every sinner has a future and every saint has a past. In the above context, it may be noted that in the present case, petitioner has not committed any offence due to lust or greed. At the most, it can be said that the petitioner was a spoiled son who intended to pressurize the parents by giving a threat that he will commit suicide. Since father has assured this court that son will behave as a civilized citizen and he is responsible for the acts of his son in future, this court has no doubt that in case the compromise placed on record by the complainant-respondent No.2 father alongwith affidavit of mother is accepted, it will be in the interest of the family. Thus, the trial court is directed to take the compromise and efforts of the petitioner to reform himself as mitigating circumstance so far quantum of sentence is concerned.

Offence under Section 309 IPC prescribe maximum sentence of one year, whereas offence under Section 327 IPC prescribe maximum sentence of ten years and for offence under Section 386 IPC, maximum sentence again prescribed is ten years. It may be noted that for all the said three offences, sentence of Life Imprisonment is not prescribed. Hence, if the trial court deem fit, it can in its wisdom, release the petitioner on probation or to the period already undergone by him or sentence him to undergo sentence till rising of the court as no minimum sentence is prescribed for the offences with which petitioner has been charged.

As a higher court, this court may venture to advise the trial court that any matters which are in the realm of human relations, pertaining to the family compassion shown by the court acts as a balm for the accused to reform himself and to follow the path of rectitude. Therefore, this court has no doubt that trial court shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner to reform himself.

Consequently, with the observations made above, present petition is disposed of with a hope that the trial court shall take the observations made by this court in right earnest.