The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1172 of 2017 --------- 1. Raju Sao 2. Sitaram Sao -Versus- 1. 2. The State of Jharkhand Shyampul Devi --------- ... Petitioners … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD --------- For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. : None --------- ORAL ORDER IN COURT Order No. 08/ Dated: 23.01.2024 This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioners by challenging the judgment dated 20.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2007 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the Criminal Appeal in part by affirming the judgment of conviction against both the petitioners however the learned Appellate Court had acquitted the co-accused other person Kanti Devi , Mahesh Saw , Sushmita Devi by giving benefit of doubt thereby affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.04.2007 passed by N.K. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 767 of 2004 ( T.R. No. 183 of 2006, T.R. No. 158 of 2007) by the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under section 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for the period of two (02) years each and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each . 1 2. At the Outset Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahni, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted at Bar that the case has been compromised between the parties and both the petitioner i.e. husband and the O.P. No. 2 i.e. wife are residing together last two (02) years in the same roof. It is submitted this the O.P. No. residing with that is 2 petitioner and they have got two (02) children and they do not want to proceed. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 namely Raju Sao is husband and petitioner No. 2 namely Sitaram Sao is the Father-in-law of the O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that the petioner No. 1 Raju Sao is also present in person and hence I.A. No. 11697 of 2022 may be allowed. 3. 4. Learned A.P.P. has raised no objection. None appears on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 on repeated call, although Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of O.P. No. 2 by Mrs. Neelam Tiwary , Advocate and Mr. Akshya Kumar Mahto, Advocate . However the O.P. No. 2 namely Shyampul Devi is physically present before this Court. 5. I.A. No. 11697 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners and the O.P. No. 2 by way of joint compromise petition. 6. It has been stated in para 3,4,5,6 and 7 of the I.A. No. 11697 of 2022 as follows:- “Para 3:- That it is submitted that cause of action in the instant case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court”. 2 “Para 4: - That it is submitted that the present matter has been compromised between the parties without any fear, force or coercion from any side”. “Para 5:- That is it submitted that during the pendency of the instant Revision Application the O.P. No. 2 and the petitioner have amicable settled their dispute outside the Court on the intervention of friends, well-wishers and relatives, and the O.P. No. 2 is now peacefully and happily residing with the petitioner No. 1.” “ Para 6:- That it is submitted that the dispute between the parties are purely personal and private in nature having no impact on the society and the O.P. No. 2 is no longer willing to pursue the instant case since good relation has been restored between the parties” . “ Para 7:- That it is submitted that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the continuation of further proceeding in the case shall only be an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of law.” 7. The petitioner No. 1 i.e. Raju Sao and the O.P. No. 2 i.e. Shyampul Devi are also physically present before this Court and it is also verified by the learned A.P.P. by going through their respective Aadhar Card . 8. The O.P. No. 2 is also present in person and submitted that she alongwith children are residing with the petitioners in her matrimonial house for more than one (01) year and she has no grievance against the petitioners . Even the case has been compromise between the parties . 3 9. 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 and by Hon’ble Patna High Court by in the case of Jai Prakash Chaurasia Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 1994 (2) BLJR 825 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and Others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in 2013 (3) SCC 330 that the parties may be permitted to get the case compromised and compounded in the matrimonial dispute for the offences under Section 498-A of the I.P.C even if, the offence is non- compoundable. 10. 11. It is case a of matrimonial dispute . In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Patna High Court , part of the judgment dated 20.07.2017 convicting the petitioners for the offence section 498 -A of I.P.C. judgment dated 20.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2007 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.04.2007 passed by N.K. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 767 of 2004 ( T.R. No. 183 of 2006, T.R. No. 158 of 2007) , are set-aide in the interest of justice and both the petitioner namely Raju Sao and Sitaram Sao are acquitted for the offences under section 498-A of the I.P.C. and they are also discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 12. is allowed in terms of compromise. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 1172 of 2017 4
Decision
13. disposed of. 14. I.A. No. 11697 of 2022 is also allowed and stands Let a copy of this order alongwith the Original Lower Court Record be sent at once to the learned Court below by the office. Bibha/ (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 5