High Court at Ranchi allowed a criminal revision to quash convictions and sentences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 DP Act, where the matrimonial case was settled, marriage dissolved, and terms complied with post-conviction.
Impugned orders dated 19.07.2008 and 14.02.2006 were set aside and case quashed; peaceful settlement accepted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 737 of 2008
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ---
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the complainant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate --- Order No. 03 Dated 02nd August, 2018
Heard Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
This application is directed against the judgment dated 19.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 1, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 14.02.2006 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 127 of 2004 (T.R. No. 690 of 2006), convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), has been affirmed albeit modification in the sentence imposed upon the petitioners.
The petitioners are mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant, who along with the husband was being prosecuted in C.P. Case No. 127 of 2004 on the allegation that after the marriage of the complainant with Md. Khurshid Alam on 20.10.2002, there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- for starting a business of her husband and the husband of the complainant had also demanded a Hero Honda Motorcycle. It has been alleged that in spite of efforts being made to settle the matter by the Panchayat, the same could not be settled and ultimately the complainant was assaulted by the accused persons. It has been alleged that the complainant was finally driven out from her matrimonial house, which ultimately led to institution of C.P. Case No. 127 of 2004. Pursuant to institution of the complaint, cognizance was taken after conducting an enquiry u/s 498A of the I.P.C. and u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and trial proceeded.
In course of trial the petitioners were convicted vide judgment dated 14.02.2006 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro for the offence punishable u/s 498A I.P.C. including the husband of the complainant, namely, Md. Khurshid Alam. All the accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.07.2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 1, Bokaro affirming the order of conviction but reduced the sentence so far as the petitioners are concerned to one year R.I. So far as the husband is concerned since he had already remained in custody for 20 months, the sentence awarded to him was modified to the period undergone by him.
Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of this case the matter has been compromised between both the sides and the marriage between Md. Khurshid Alam and the complainant has been dissolved and the terms and conditions of settlement have already been complied with. Learned counsel further submits that the instant case is one of the subject matter of the said compromise.
This argument has been accepted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant, who has further stated that the complainant does not have any objection if the impugned judgments are set aside.
An interlocutory application being I.A. No. 5137 of 2018 which has been preferred by way of joint compromise petition suggests that the matter has already been settled between the parties and the marriage between Md. Khurshid Alam and the complainant has already been dissolved which also includes the settlement agreement in which the husband of the complaint is also a signatory. It appears from the settlement agreement that the amount agreed upon has already been received by the complainant. A further condition has been laid down that any other cases which are pending shall be effectively resolved in view of the compromise which has been arrived at between Md. Khurshid Alam and the complainant.
Considering the averment made in I.A. No. 5137 of 2018 and what has been stated by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the marriage between Md. Khurshid Alam and the complainant has already been dissolved and the terms and conditions agreed between the parties have been complied with, the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2008 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 1, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2006, as well as the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated the judgment dated 14.02.2006 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 127 of 2004 (T.R. No. 690 of 2006), convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the offence punishable u/s 498 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), are hereby quashed and set aside.
This application is allowed and the pending I.A. also stands disposed of.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
MK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitions for quashing of conviction and sentence order should be allowed upon successful compromise and dissolution of marriage.
Whether pending cases arising from matrimonial disputes can be settled as per Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Noor jahan Khatoon
Md. Jamil
Isarat Jahan
State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
