Pradhan Oraon Vs The State Of Jharkhand

( 2025:JHHC:37800 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 338 of 2017

Pradhan Oraon, son of Sri Ranjit Oraon, resident of Village Srango, P.O. & P.S. Ghaghra, District- Gumla … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Rajio Orain, W/o Pradhan Oraon, D/o Kunwar Oraon, R/o Village Sarango, P.O. & P.S. Ghaghra, District- Gumla … Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Mohua Palit, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shambhu Nath Tiwari, Advocate

¶9

10/16.12.2025 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Mohua Palit, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Shambhu Nath Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

¶10

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 26.11.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.08/2015, whereby, the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal and partly dismissed the appeal by giving benefit of doubt to convict nos.2 and 3, who have been acquitted and so far as this petitioner is concerned, confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2015 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. No.576/2008, corresponding to Ghaghra P.S. Case No.52/2008 (T.R. No.52/2015) by which the learned trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and six months for the offence under Section 498(A)

¶11

-1-

¶12

Criminal Revision No. 338 of 2017

¶13

( 2025:JHHC:37800 )

¶14

of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the petitioner is the husband of the informant, who is opposite party no.2. He then submits that the matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute. He next submits that even now both the petitioner and opposite party no.2 have been legally separated and they have re-married to another person. He also submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the petitioner and informant/opposite party no.2 and they have compromised the matter and the joint compromise petition has been filed in the form of I.A. No.15218 of 2025. He next submits that one time alimony of Rs.1,50,000/- has been settled in light of the compromise, which has already been paid by petitioner to the informant/opposite party no.2. He submits that in view of that, the compromise petition may kindly be allowed and the petitioner may kindly be acquitted.

¶15

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it appears from the said I.A. that the matter has been compromised.

¶16

4. Learned counsel appearing for the informant/opposite party no.2 accepts the said submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that now both the petitioner and opposite party no.2 have re-married with another person and the compromise has reached between them. He further submits that in light of the compromise, one time alimony of Rs.1,50,000/- has already been received by the informant/opposite party no.2. He next submits that the said I.A. has been filed on separate affidavit by both the sides. He also submits that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further in the matter. On these grounds, he submits that this matter can be disposed of.

¶17

-2-

¶18

Criminal Revision No. 338 of 2017

¶19

( 2025:JHHC:37800 )

¶20

5. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties and considering that the matter is arising under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner is happened to be the husband of the informant and the case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and now both the parties have compromised the matter and even they have re-married to another person and in that view of the matter, the prayer made in the said I.A. is allowed.

¶21

6. Taking note of the object of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the expected approach of the High Court in the event of bona fide settlement of disputes had been duly exposited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana , reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has underscored the duty of the Court to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes and said as under in paragraphs 12 to 16 of the said judgment:

¶22

“12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

¶23

13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in

¶24

-3-

¶25

Criminal Revision No. 338 of 2017

¶26

( 2025:JHHC:37800 )

¶27

chasing their “cases” in different courts.

¶28

14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860.

¶29

15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

¶30

16. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR abovementioned. ”

¶31

7. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bitan Sengupta v. State of W.B. , reported in (2018) 18 SCC 366 .

¶32

8. In view of the aforesaid judgments and taking note of the terms of settlement as stated in the said I.A. and further considering the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another , reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the said settlement is, hereby, accepted.

¶33

9. In that view of the matter, the judgment dated 26.11.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.08/2015 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2015 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. No.576/2008,

¶34

-4-

¶35

Criminal Revision No. 338 of 2017

¶36

( 2025:JHHC:37800 )

¶37

corresponding to Ghaghra P.S. Case No.52/2008 (T.R. No.52/2015) are, hereby, set-aside.

¶38

10. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶39

11. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.