Allowed

Abdul Ansari Alias Abdul Mian v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Dec 2019Cr.A(SJ)/1198/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 498A and 354 IPC. The court set aside the lower court's judgment and sentence due to an amicable compromise between the parties and the informant's subsequent remarriage.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 18.07.2018 passing conviction and sentence was set aside; the appeal was allowed.

Abdul Ansari Alias Abdul Mian Vs State of Jharkhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1198 of 2018

¶3

Abdul Ansari @ Abdul Mian

¶4

Kalwa Khatoon

¶5

Ainul Ansari @ Md. Ainul Ansari … Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand … Respondent --CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

For the Appellants : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate

¶9

¶10

Order No. 04 Dated 17^th December, 2019

¶11

I.A. No. 8651 of 2019

¶12

Heard Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned APP assisted by Mr. Arpit Kumar, learned appearing for the informant.

¶13

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.07.2018 passed in S.T. No. 74/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum- Special Judge for Offences against Women, Koderma by which appellants No. 1 and 2 had been convicted for the offence u/s 498A I.P.C. whereas the appellant N. 3 has been convicted for the offence u/s 354 I.P.C. and both have been directed to undergo sentence of R.I. for 1 ½ years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- as well as R.I. for 1 ½ years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the respective sections in which the appellants have been convicted.

¶14

The First Information Report was instituted in which it had been alleged that Saddam Ansari on the point of knife had committed rape upon the informant. On making a disclosure before the Anjuman Committee, the said Saddam Ansari had accepted his guilt and accordingly solemnized marriage with the informant on 29.04.2014. After the marriage the in-laws had not accepted the informant and there was demand of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs made. She was also subjected to torture by various means. It has also been alleged that attempts were made to pacify the matter but of no avail and ultimately the informant was forced to institute an F.I.R. being Chandwara P.S. Case No. 84 of 2014.

¶15

After investigation charge sheet was submitted, leading to taking of cognizance and after commitment charge was framed u/s 498A/34 and 376/

¶16

¶17

511 I.P.C. against the present appellants as well as Saddam Ansari and Md. Nasim Ansari. On conclusion of trial judgment was passed on 18.07.2018 by which the appellants No. 1 and 2 were convicted for the offence u/s 498A I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo Rs. R.I. one year six months along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- whereas the appellant No. 3 has been convicted u/s 354 I.P.C and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year 06 months along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-.

¶18

Mrs. Rashmi Kumar at the outset has stated that the matter has been compromised between the appellants and the informant and she has referred to a joint compromise petition which has been filed by way of I.A. (Cr.) No. 9032 of 2019.

¶19

Mr. Arpit learned counsel for the informant has accepted the factum of compromise and has further echoed the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the informant had subsequently solemnized another marriage. The joint compromise petition as well as the averments made in I.A. No. 9032 of 2019 has been perused from which it appears that the matter has finally been compromised between the parties and the informant has also solemnized marriage in January, 2019. It also appears that the appellants No. 1 and 2 are parents-in-law of the informant whereas the appellant No. 3 is the brother-in-law of the informant.

¶20

Regard being had to the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the informant has subsequently solemnized another marriage while setting aside the judgment dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge for Offences against Women, Koderma, this appeal stands allowed. Pending I.A. stands deposed of.

¶21

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)

¶22

Abdul Ansari Alias Abdul Mian v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Ansari Alias Abdul Mian v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamsher Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jiten Sardar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Shankar Singh Alias Ravi Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kharia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Chandra Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand