1.Mubarak Ansari @ Mobarak Ansari 2.Sayeed Hussain @ Sayeed Ansari @ Sayeed Hussain Ansari v. ….... --- --- Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 282 of 2019 1.Mubarak Ansari @ Mobarak Ansari 2.Sayeed Hussain @ Sayeed Ansari @ Sayeed Hussain Ansari 3.Tabarak Ansari 4.Sakina Bibi --- --- Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Afreen Khatoon Versus ….... --- --- Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Siddharth, Advocate For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate 13/15.02.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
Legal Reasoning
for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.01.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2018 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa whereby and where under the learned appellate court below has affirmed judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.08.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in G.R. No. 1463 of 2013 arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 280 of 2013 convicting the petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.3 being husband and brother-in-law to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and further petitioner no.2 and petitioner no. 4 being father-in-law and mother-in-law and one nanad Shehnaz Khatoon were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year. However, the learned appellate court below while acquitting the nanad of the victim i.e., Shehnaz Khatoon upheld the judgment of conviction and modified the order of sentence by directing petitioner no.1 and 3 to undergo R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for 3 months. Further petitioner no. 2 and 4 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for 2 months. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the gist of the allegations as set out in the prosecution case is that the informant Afreen Khatoon was subjected to cruelty by these petitioners after getting 2 married with petitioner no.1 Mubarak Ansari for want of non-fulfillment of dowry and on the basis of the said allegation as made in Complaint Case No. 481 of 2012, Garhwa P.S. Case No. 280 of 2013 dated 08.07.2013 was instituted and after investigation the charge-sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,323/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, it appears that the learned Trial Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa found all the accused persons including the petitioner no.1 husband and the members of the in-law’s family guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and thereafter they were convicted and sentenced, as above, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. Further, it appears that the learned appellate court below while hearing the criminal appeal no.40 of 2018 upheld the convictions of the petitioners and acquitted one of co-accused Sehnaz Khatoon and passed the order of sentence by modifying the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 23.01.2019 as above, which is under challenge. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has filed counter affidavit submitting therein that in compliance of the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by this Court, the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station had served notice to the opposite party no.2 Afreen Khatoon through her mother, who had received the notice on her behalf on 11.01.2024. Further, it has been submitted that from the service report it appears that the opposite party no.2 has solemnized marriage with one Momtaz Ansari S/o Mustakin Ansari, resident of Bishrampur, Tola Islampur, P.S. Bishrampur, District- Palamau. The concerned police officer has also intimated them that date was fixed on 17.01.2024 before this Court for hearing. Photo copy of the service of notice along with the report about another marriage of the opposite party no.2, as per Muslim rituals and customs has also been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State. 5. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that one I.A. No. 3133 of 2019 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner submitting inter alia therein that during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2018(which is under challenge) the statement of the victim –wife ( Complainant- opposite party no.2) was recorded by the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa on 23.01.2019 3 where the opposite party no.2 had stated that she has compromised the case with all the accused persons including this petitioner and for this a compromise petition was prepared in which both the parties had put their signature and xerox copy of the statement of the complainant in the said compromise petition has been annexed with the I.A. No. 3133 of 2019 ( filed on behalf of petitioner with a prayer to exempt the petitioners from surrendering before the learned Court below), which has been marked as Ext. 1/1. Further, it is submitted that petitioners have been found guilty only under section 498-A of the IPC and for this the opposite party no.2- victim-wife (complainant) compromised with the petitioner and she has also given her statement before the learned appellate court below in Cr. Appeal No. 40 of 2018, which is under challenge in the instant criminal revision, wherein she has specifically stated that dispute has been settled and she has filed joint compromise petition before the court below. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the statement made by the opposite party no.2 before the learned appellate court below on 23.01.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2018 wherein the opposite party no.2 has accepted that compromise has taken place between her and her husband and a joint compromise petition has been prepared wherein both parties have put their signature and the statement of opposite party no.2 and the compromise petition have been marked as Annexure-1 and 1/1 which are admitted by O.P. No. 2 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and also in view of the service report filed by the learned A.P.P., it is found that it is a case under Section 498-A of the IPC where both the parties have compromised amicably, as evident from Annexure-1 and Annexure-1/1 to the instant I.A. No. 3133 of 2019. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties are also fully agreeing to the said fact. It is also evident from the service report filed by the learned A.P.P. through the counter affidavit that the complainant-wife has solemnized another marriage with one Momtaz Ansari and after marriage she has been living at her matrimonial house at village Bishrampur and at the time of service of notice, she had gone to Delhi for treatment as told by the mother of the opposite party no.2. 8. It is found that petitioners have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, which is not compoundable in 4 nature. However, in view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the parties have submitted that although, section 498-A IPC is not compoundable in nature, but in the present case, since both the parties have entered into a compromise and also that the opposite party no.2 has also solemnized another marriage and she is living happily at her matrimonial house, therefore, the case may be allowed to be compounded for the ends of justice. 9. In this view of the matter, the instant Criminal Revision Application is allowed to be compounded in order to ensure substantive justice to both parties, taking into consideration that after the compromise, the complainant-wife (opposite party no.2) has solemnized another marriage and she is living at her matrimonial house. 10. In the result, the instant Criminal Revision is allowed as
Decision
compounded. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of. 11. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 23.01.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2018 by the learned appellate court i.e., Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.08.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in G.R. No. 1463 of 2013 arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 280 of 2013 are set aside and the appellants are discharged from their criminal liabilities in this case. A.Mohanty (Navneet Kumar, J.)