Allowed

Lalit Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Aug 2018Cr.Rev./558/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application seeking exemption to surrender for petitioners convicted under Section 498A IPC. The court accepted that a compromise was reached, the dispute resolved, and the parties are now residing together, setting aside the lower court's judgments.

What did the court decide?

Exemption to surrender granted in terms of Rule 159 of Jharkhand High Court Rules; impugned judgments and order dated 06.02.2018 and 15.04.2017 set aside.

Lalit Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 558 of 2018

¶2

Lalit Prasad

¶3

Shyam Narayan Prasad

¶4

Bina Devi ... … Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Deepika Devi @ Dipika Devi … … Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶9

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Faruque Ansari, Advocate

¶10

04/14.08.2018

¶11

I.A. No. 3921 of 2018

¶12

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Faruque Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

¶13

This application has been preferred by the petitioners for grant of exemption in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court, Rules in view of the fact that a compromise has been effected between the parties.

¶14

Both the parties had agreed on the points of compromise and have referred to I.A. No. 3920 of 2018 by stating that the dispute has been resolved and the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no. 2 are staying together.

¶15

In view of the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the same being an exceptional circumstance this application is allowed and the petitioner are exempted to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court, Rules.

¶16

Cr. Revision No. 558 of 2018

¶17

This application has been preferred by the petitioners against the judgment dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.04.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with

¶18

-2-

¶19

Complaint Case No. 93/2012 (T.R. No. 25/2017), convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each has been affirmed.

¶20

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter has been compromised. This fact has been echoed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶21

A Complaint Case was initially instituted against the petitioners including the husband and in-laws of the opposite party no.2 in which it was alleged that after her marriage there was a demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand the complainant was subjected to torture which ultimately led her to institute a Complaint Case.

¶22

Upon conducting an inquiry cognizance was taken and after charge was framed the complainant having been able to established her case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and were sentenced accordingly. An appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2017 was also dismissed.

¶23

An Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 3920 of 2018 has been preferred by the petitioners from which it appears that the matter at the behest of the well wishers has been compromised and the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no.2 are residing together and leading a peaceful married life. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties have been asserted in the compromise petition so filed.

¶24

In such view of the matter that good relationship between the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 has been restored and the opposite party no. 2 does not want to pursue her case any further, while setting aside the judgment dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-

¶25

-3-

¶26

II, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2017 and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.04.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Complaint Case No. 93/2012 (T.R. No. 25/2017), this application is allowed.

¶27

Pending I.As. also stand disposed of.

¶28

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶29

Alok/-

Lalit Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samir Kumar Gupta And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Binay Panna Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nand Lal Sahu Alias Nand Lal Prasad And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Pratima Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Asgar Ali Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ram Singh Alias Kishori Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand