[2025:RJ-JP:6261] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1402/2006 Mukesh Chand S/o Chirangi Lal, R/o Pahadi, District Bharatpur (presently in Bharatpur Jail) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 12/02/2025 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist-petitioner challenging the order dated 01.12.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Deeg, District Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.12/2004 whereby learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner, has upheld the conviction and sentence vide order dated 20.07.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate I Class, Nagar, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in Criminal Case No.23/2000. The revisionist- petitioner in this case has been sentenced as under:- i) Under Section 498-A of IPC-One year's simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment, & [2025:RJ-JP:6261] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1402/2006] ii) Under Section 406 of IPC-One year's simple imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that in this case, there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties, therefore, wife of the revisionist-petitioner registered a criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC against him. Learned counsel also submitted that marriage between the parties has already been dissolved vide order dated 23.11.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg, Bharatpur in the petition filed on behalf of wife of the revisionist-petitioner and thus, as on today, marriage between the parties is not subsisting. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner makes a limited submission that he does not want to challenge the order of conviction on merits but the sentence awarded to the revisionist- petitioner may be modified by granting him benefit of probation under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1958'). Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner contended that the revisionist-petitioner has been suffering with pain and agony of trial against him for last more than 24 years, therefore, the petition be allowed and the revisionist-petitioner be granted benefit under Section 4 of the Act of 1958. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed by the Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Smt. Sumati Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.533/2003) decided on 23.11.2022 [2025:RJ-JP:6261] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1402/2006] and also the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in the case of Smt. Budana & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.108/2005) decided on 29.08.2023. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf the respondent-State opposed the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner and submitted that looking to the seriousness of offences committed by the revisionist-petitioner, the revisionist-petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of probation. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In the case in hand, the matter pertains to matrimonial dispute between the parties and the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved vide order dated 23.11.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg, Bharatpur in the petition filed on behalf of wife of the revisionist- petitioner and thus, as on today, marriage between the parties is not subsisting. The revisionist-petitioner is suffering with pain and agony of trial against him for last more than 24 years. 8. Resultantly, the present revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist-petitioner is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the present revisionist-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC as recorded in the impugned judgment dated 20.07.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate I Class, Nagar, Bharatpur and upheld vide order dated 01.12.2006 passed by [2025:RJ-JP:6261] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1402/2006] learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Deeg, District Bharatpur, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgment and directs that the revisionist-petitioner shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958 upon his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with a further undertaking that he shall maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence. The revisionist-petitioner is granted two months’ time to furnish the bail bonds, sureties and undertaking as ordered above. 9. The Registry is directed to send back record of this case to the trial court forthwith. 10. Stay application and any other pending applications, also stand disposed of accordingly. 11. A copy of this order shall be sent to learned trial Court for compliance. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /19