Allowed

Manoj Kumar Upadhyay And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC13 Dec 2019Cr.A(SJ)/1493/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence against the appellants. The court held that since the matrimonial dispute was settled, the marriage dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and all settlement terms were fulfilled, the criminal proceedings lost their basis.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31 July 2017 were set aside; the appeal was allowed; the interlocutory application was disposed of.

Manoj Kumar Upadhyay And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand… — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1493 of 2017

¶3

¶4

Manoj Kumar Upadhyay. 2. Mrs. Poonam Devi. ... .Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand. 2. Vandana Upadhyay. .....Respondents

¶7

¶8

Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶9

---------For the Appellants : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, APP. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate

¶10

06/13.12.2019 Heard the parties.

¶11

This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction dated 31^st July, 2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVIII, Special F.T.C. ( CAW), Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2011, by which the appellant no. 1 has been convicted under section 498(A)/323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act whereas the appellant no. 2 has been convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶12

Appellant No. 1 is the husband whereas appellant no. 2 is the mother in law of the respondent No. 2 who were proceeded against in Jharia (Alakdiha) P.S. Case No. 378 of 2010 on account of torture meted out to the complainant for non fulfillment of demand of Maruti Car.

¶13

The FIR was initially registered under section 498A, 406, 307, 323, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted and after commitment, charge was framed under sections 323/34, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the appellants and additionally Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code only against appellant no. 1. Vide judgement dated 31^st July, 2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVIII, Special F.T.C. (CAW), Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2011, the appellant no. 1 was convicted for the offence under section 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act whereas appellant no. 2 was convicted for the offence under section 323 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellant no. 1 was acquitted from the charges levelled against him under section 307/341 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no. 2 was

¶14

-2-

¶15

also acquitted for the charges under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

An interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1656 of 2018 has been filed by the parties, which is by way of a joint compromise petition, in which it has been stated that at the intervention of well wishers, the matter has been settled and the terms and conditions for settlement have been laid down in paragraph 3 of the said application.

¶17

Consequent to the compromise, which has been arrived at, an application for dissolution of marriage under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was preferred by the parties being Original T (M) Suit No. 269 of 2018. The said suit was disposed of on 24.07.2019 and which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit by the appellant and marriage between O.P. No. 2 and appellant no. 1 has been dissolved in terms of section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the fact that the matter has been compromised and marriage has also been dissolved in terms of compromise as well as other terms and conditions having been fulfilled by the appellant, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be accordingly set aside in view of the said compromise.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has stated that terms and conditions of mediation have been fulfilled.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respective parties in support of their contention that judgment of conviction and order of sentence judgement be set aside have relied upon an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bitan Sengupta Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 762.

¶21

It therefore appears that terms and conditions of settlement between the parties have been fulfilled by them and marriage between the appellant no. 1 as well as respondent no. 2 has been dissolved with mutual consent. The other terms and conditions regarding monetary transaction also appears to have been fulfilled by the appellant no. 1. The dispute is matrimonial in nature and since both parties have settled their dispute and fulfilled their terms and conditions, which was arrived at and since relationship of husband and wife between appellant no. 1 and O.P. No. 2 no longer exists, the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 31^st July, 2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVIII, Special F.T.C. ( CAW), Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2011, is hereby set aside.

¶22

This appeal stands allowed. Interlocutory application also stands disposed

¶23

of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶24

Rakesh/-

Manoj Kumar Upadhyay And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Upadhyay And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Keshav Narayan Banerjee Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Mahendra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajan Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hareram Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sambrai Pahan Alias Thoura Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhan Gope Alias Jitender Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand