Allowed

Umesh Thakur And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC15 Jun 2023Cr.Rev./448/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed revision application setting aside Sections 498A conviction and sentence due to judicial compromise between parties in matrimonial dispute, citing inherent power to compound non-compoundable offence.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside conviction and sentence; permitting parties to compound the case; disposing of pending interlocutory application.

Umesh Thakur And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 448 of 2009 With

¶2

I.A. No.5209 of 2023

¶3

Umesh Thakur

¶4

Ram Narayan Thakur

¶5

Kalawati Devi

¶6

Dinesh Thakur

¶7

Dewanti Devi …... …. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand

¶10

Asha Devi .…. …. Opp. Parties --------

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶12

-------For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rahul Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, Advocate

¶13

11/ Dated 15.06.2023

¶14

The petitioners have filed this revision application against the judgment dated 01.05.2009 passed by Sri Nageshwar Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Cr. Appeal No.03/2009, whereby and wherein, learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2008 passed by Sri S.S.Yadav, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st class, Garhwa in connection with Complaint Case No.504/2002, holding the petitioners guilty of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing them to undergo S.I for two years along-with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioners were further directed to undergo S.I for one month.

¶15

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a complaint petition filed by the opposite party No.2 Asha Devi, alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner No.1 Umesh Thakur in February, 1999. She gave birth to a girl child on 17.06.2000, who could not survive. Subsequently thereto, the petitioners started demanding Rs.10,000/- and a color television. To enforce the demand, the opposite party No.2 was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from matrimonial home.

¶16

The opposite party No.2 had adduced oral evidence in support of her case.

¶17

On the basis of the evidence available on record, both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

During the hearing of this case, an interlocutory application has been filed, which is a joint compromise petition between the petitioners and the opposite

¶19

party No.2, stating therein that the parties have settled their dispute.

¶20

Both the petitioners and the opposite party No.2 are present in the Court . On query, they have stated that they have compromised the case. The opposite party No.2 namely Asha Devi who is represented by Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, Advocate, informed that she has settled her matrimonial dispute with the petitioner No.1 and she does not want to further pursue the case.

¶21

The offence under Section 498A I.P.C is non-compoundable but through various judicial pronouncements, it is now settled principle of law that the offence relating to the matrimonial dispute may be allowed to be compounded.

¶22

In Daggupati Jayalakshmi v. State as reported in (1993) 2 D. & M. C. 581 : 1993 Cri LJ 3162, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that under inherent power in matrimonial cases, divorce or reunion by mutual consent, if there is a compromise, the Court is competent, to permit the parties to compound a non-compoundable offence.

¶23

As the parties have settled their dispute and there is specific averment by the opposite party No.2 that she does not want to further pursue this case, the parties are permitted to compound the case.

¶24

Accordingly, this revision application is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is set aside. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶26

BS/

Umesh Thakur And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Thakur And Ors. v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Sarwar Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arjun Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aryan Raj Alias Aryan Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arvind Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharat Sardar Vs the State of Jharkhand