…. Raju Prasad Swarnkar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sandhya Devi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 563 of 2018 …. Raju Prasad Swarnkar Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sandhya Devi ----- …… Petitioner …… Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the State For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Vikash Anand, Advocate : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A. P. P. : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, Advocate I.A. No. 3480 of 2023 ….. 21/24.04.2023 The present Criminal Revision No. 563 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 24.01.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2017 whereby learned
Legal Reasoning
Sessions Judge, Hazaribag has dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
Legal Reasoning
11.01.2017 passed by Shri Yogesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in Complaint Case No. 1443 of 2010 corresponding to T. R. No. 73 of 2017 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three (3) years and to pay Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo S. I. for a period of six (6) months. 2. I.A. No. 3480 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 by way of a joint compromise petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner -2- that the case has been compromised between the parties. It is submitted that till date the petitioner has paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 in light of the order passed by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has deposited Demand Draft of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of the opposite party no. 2 in the office of the learned Registrar General of this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to pay Rs. 50,000/- within two-three months at the time of withdrawal of Maintenance Case No. 120 of 2010 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner undertakes to return the articles to opposite party no. 2 mentioned at para- 4 (i) of the I.A. No. 3480 of 2023.
Decision
It is submitted that in view of the above compromise between the parties, the judgments and order passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State raised no objection. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has admitted the factum of compromise between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2-complainant. It has been submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has already received Rs. 3,00,000/- from the petitioner on earlier occasion. It is submitted that opposite party no. 2 may be permitted to withdraw the Demand Draft of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the office of the learned Registrar General of this Court. It is submitted that opposite party no. 2 will withdraw the Maintenance Case No. 120 of 2010 pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag on deposit of Rs. 50,000/- before the learned Court below. 7. Perused the Lower Court Records and I.A. No. 3480 of -3- 2023 and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. Para- 4 (i) to (vi), 5 and 6 of the I.A. No. 3480 of 2023 read as follows:- “Para-4 (i):- That the instant case it has been settled that the petitioner shall by way of One Time Settlement pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the O. P. No. 2 including empty box, Copper Balti, copper utensil, Steel pot (Thali glass) to the O. P. No. 2 and the entire matrimonial dispute as among the parties shall be finally resolved. (ii) That the petitioner has already paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the O. P. No. 2 by way of Demand Draft on 29.09.2022. (iii) That the petitioner thereafter paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the O. P. No. 2 on 20.02.2023 in her bank account. (iv) That the rest amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- have been deposited on 29.03.2023 by the petitioner before the Learned Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi in view of the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Court. (v) That the petitioner shall pay rest amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the O. P. No. 2 within a period of 3 months. (vi) That the O. P. No. 2 shall withdraw the M. P. Case NO. 120/2010 filed by her in the Family Court, Hazaribag. Para-5:- That both party has amicably settled their all matrimonial disputes and they shall not continue their matrimonial relation to each other from the date of settlement and the O. P. No. 2 shall have got no claim in any manner on the basis of said matrimonial relationship with petitioner. Para-6:-That both parties agree to the term and condition as aforesaid voluntarily and without any fear or coercion.” 9. It transpires that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. -4- 10. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Others and State of Haryana and Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 of para- 13 and 14 as follows:- “Para-13:- The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts. Para-14:- There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper- technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.” It has been held in Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble 11. Supreme Court in the case of Vivek Rai and Another Vs. High court of Jharkhand through Registrar reported in (2015) 12 SCC 86 at para-11 as follows:- “Para-11:- It has not been disputed even by the learned counsel for the High Court that the Rule does not affect the inherent power of the High Court to exempt the requirement of surrender in exceptional situations. It cannot thus, be argued that prohibition against posting of a revision petition for admission applies even to a situation where on an application of the petitioner, on a case -5- being made out, the Court, in exercise of its inherent power, considers it appropriate to grant exemption from surrender having regard to the nature and circumstances of a case. Thus, the exception as found in corresponding Supreme Court Rules that if the Court grants exemption from surrender and directs listing of a case, the Rule cannot stand in the way of the Court's exercise of such jurisdiction, has to be assumed in the impugned Rule.” 12. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 at para-23 and 24 and 25 as follows:- that the High Court concluded, “Para-23:- The submission advanced on behalf of Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent- complainant) before the High Court, was accepted. The High Court arrived at the conclusion, that the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi had erroneously placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn., which had already been overruled by the judgment rendered by a larger Bench in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi. While considering the contention advanced on behalf of the the appellants/accused, material/documents/record which the complainant was placing reliance on, did not fall within the ambit and scope of the term “record of the case” contained in Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. According to the High Court, the record of the case referred to in Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was only such record, documents and articles which, on consideration by the Magistrate, are sent to the Court of Sessions, consequent upon passing an order of commitment. The material and documents relied upon by the appellants/accused in the present controversy would, therefore, not fall within the zone of consideration at the hands of the Court of Session under Section 227 of the submissions advanced at the behest of the appellants/accused were declined. For the aforesaid reasons, the High Court accepted the Criminal Revision Petition filed by Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant). The order dated 7.8.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi was accordingly quashed. The parties were accordingly directed to participate in the further proceedings before the Court of Session. Para-24:- We have considered the submissions advanced at the behest of the rival parties. We are of the view, that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court had before it an exhaustive and detailed order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, the controversy, while keeping in mind the inherent power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. specially because the Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 7.8.1999, had concluded, on the basis of the material relied upon by the accused, that no case was therefore, have examined the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it ought to, -6- made out against the accused. This according to learned counsel, was permissible in view of the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Para-25:- Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is being extracted hereunder:- “482. Saving of inherent power of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” The discretion vested in a High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised suo-moto to prevent the abuse of process of a court, and/or to secure the ends of justice.” 13. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in the case of Jai Prakash Chaurasia Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (1994) 2 BLJR 825 at para-4 and 5 as follows:- “Para-4:- In this case, the petitioner is also prosecuted under Section 494 of the I.P.C. as per Section 198 of the Cr. P. C. I find that the prosecution under Section 494 of the IPC can only be initiated on the complaint made by the aggrieved party. Here, the complainant has come forward in this application before this Court showing her willingness not to proceed with the matter. I find that the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 and 494 of the IPC are not compoundable. Para- 5 Counsel for the parties have placed reliance in Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111. In Mahesh Chand (supra) I find that the offence was under Section 307 of the I. P. C. and since the parties had come to an agreement and good sense had prevailed upon them, the Supreme Court directed the Court below to permit the parties to compound the offence.” 14. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. Versus State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 at para 13, 14, 15 and 17 as follows:- “Para 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4) “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in -7- recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” Para 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. in the criminal complaints. Majority of 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by to the complainant the insurmountable harassment, agony and pain complainant, accused and his close relations. such complaint can lead to that 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the -8- real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” Para 15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21) “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12) live peacefully. But ‘12. … There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life little matrimonial skirmishes and suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.’ The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the -9- implicating relatives of courts would not encourage such disputes.” Para 17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of in long-term matrimonial disputes, without analysing ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” the husband the 15. It transpires that the case has been settled by way of one time settlement. However, the petitioner must pay Rs. 50,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 at the time of withdrawal of Maintenance Case No. 120 of 2010 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag within a period of two-three months. 16. Under the circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judgment dated 24.01.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2017 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.01.2017 passed by Shri Yogesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in Complaint Case No. 1443 of 2010 corresponding to T. R. No. 73 of 2017 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three (3) years and to pay Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo for a period of six (6) months, are set aside in the interest of justice and the petitioner- Raju Prasad Swarnkar is acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner- Raju Prasad Swarnkar is -10- discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. 17. However, opposite party no. 2 is permitted to withdraw the Demand Draft of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of the Opposite party no. 2 from the office of learned Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi within ten days from today. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No. 563 of 2018 is allowed in terms of compromise. I.A. No. 3480 of 2023 is also allowed and stands disposed 19. of. Let a copy of this order be sent to the office of the learned Registrar General and let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Court below for the needful. Kamlesh/ (Sanjay Prasad, J.)