Bhagwan Seth Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.289 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2001 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - DEHRI-ONSONE District- Rohtas

====================================================== Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Seth S/O Bhagwan Seth R/O Village- Shahpur, P.S - Sheosagar, District- Rohtas.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

Meena Devi W/O Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Seth R/O Village- Shahpur, P.SSheosagar, Distt.- Rohtas. D/O Late Sita Ram Prasad, at present R/O Mohalla- Jakky Bigha, P.S- Dehri, Dist.- Rohtas.

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

======================================================

¶10

with

¶11

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 319 of 2025

¶12

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2001 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - DEHRI-ONSONE District- Rohtas

¶13

======================================================

¶14

Bhagwan Seth S/O Late Jagarnath Seth R/O Village- Shahpur, P.SSheosagar, District- Rohtas.

¶15

Sumitra Devi W/O Bhagwaen Seth R/O Village- Shahpur, P.S- Sheosagar, District- Rohtas.

¶16

... ... Petitioner/s

¶17

Versus

¶18

The State of Bihar

¶19

Meena Devi W/O Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Seth R/O Village- Shahpur, P.SSheosagar, District- Rohtas. D/O Late Sita Ram Prasad, At present Resident of Mohalla- Jakky Bigha, P.S- Dehri, Distt.- Rohtas.

¶20

... ... Respondent/s

¶21

======================================================

¶22

Appearance : (In CRIMINAL REVISION No. 289 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Abhijit Prahlat, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate (In CRIMINAL REVISION No. 319 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP For the O.P. NO.2 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

3 07-05-2025 Both the revisions are taken up together in presence of

¶25

the learned Advocates for the petitioners and the opposite

¶26

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.289 of 2025(3) dt.07-05-2025 2/5

¶27

parties for hearing on the point of admission because the petitioners were convicted by one and identical judgment for committing offence under Section 498A of the IPC and they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two years.

¶28

While Criminal Revision No.289 of 2025 is filed by Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Seth, the husband of the victim lady, Criminal Revision No.319 of 2025 is filed by Bhagwan Seth and Sumitra Devi being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim lady respectively.

¶29

In both the criminal revisions, the petitioners contained that after disposal of Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2016 on 20.12.2024 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court against the petitioners in Complaint Case No.560 of 2001 an out of Court settlement was arrived at by and between the petitioners and victim lady, it was decided by and between the parties that the petitioner of Criminal Revision No.289 of 2025, namely, Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Seth and his wife Meena Devi would reside separately and for such purpose they would file a suit for mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and towards permanent maintenance/alimony/settlement of the case Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Seth would pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the

¶30

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.289 of 2025(3) dt.07-05-2025 3/5

¶31

opposite party No.2-Meena Devi.

¶32

It was also aggrieved that on the said compromise petition being accepted by the Court of Competent Jurisdiction and after passing mutual decree of divorce, all other pending cases between the parties including the order of conviction and sentence would not be made effective and the pending cases shall be dropped as well as the order of conviction and sentence passed in the case under Section 498A of the I.P.C. shall be set aside.

¶33

The said compromise petition was made in Matrimonial Suit No.76 of 2025. Paragraph No.4 of the application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act runs thus :-

¶34

“;g fd oS/kkfud dkj.ko”k oSokfgd laEca/k foPNsn dk vkosnu izLrqr djus esa tc foyEc gqvk rks vkosnd la[;k&2 oks mlds ifjokj okyksa ds eu esa vfo”okl rFkk “kadk vkosnd la[;k&1 ds ckjs esa gqvk ftlds dkj.k vkosnd la[;k&2 ds firk us fo}ku eq[; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh] lklkjke ds le{k eksdnek ua&560 lu` 2001 vkosnd la[;k&1 rFkk muds ifjokj okyksa ds fo:) nkf[ky dj fn;s ftlesa vkosnd la[;k&1 oks muds ekrk&firk dks fnukad 24-6-2016 dks fo}ku vuqe.Myh; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh fMgjh vkWu&lksu }kjk fl)&nks’k fd;s tkus mijkar fo}ku vfrfjDr ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh”k&14 jkksgrkl lklkjke }kjk mDr okn esa nks’kflf) ds fo:) nkf[ky fd0 vihy la0&37@2018 rFkk 38@2018 dks fujLr fd;k x;k gS ftlds fo:) vknj.kh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kfpdk nkf[ky fd;k tkuk gS”

¶35

However, no decree of divorce has yet been passed

¶36

in the said matrimonial suit accepting the compromise petition.

¶37

A question arises as to whether a revisional court

¶38

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.289 of 2025(3) dt.07-05-2025 4/5

¶39

can set aside an order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, on the basis of such compromise, which has not been accepted as yet by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶40

The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner relies on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2022) decided on 03.01.2022.

¶41

It is ascertained from the fact of the abovementioned decision that the High Court of Jharkhand after taking note of the settlement between the parties, who resolved their marital discord and are leading a happy conjugal life, has confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, while reducing the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant.

¶42

The Hon’ble Supreme Court taking note of the terms of settlement arrived at by and between the parties, allowed the appeal and I.A. No.6052 of 2020 moved before the High Court in Criminal Revision No.910 of 2019 and all the proceedings arising out of the said FIR No.204 of 2014 are quashed qua the appellant. Accordingly, the order of conviction of the appellant is set aside.

¶43

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.289 of 2025(3) dt.07-05-2025 5/5

¶44

In the instant case, the petitioners have not filed such application praying for settlement of the criminal case.

¶45

On the other hand, the petitioners are relying upon some terms of settlement arrived at by and between Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Seth and Meena Devi at the time of filing of the petition for mutual divorce. The fact of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court is distinguishable with the facts of these cases.

¶46

For the reasons stated above, this Court is not in a position to admit the instant revision, as the prayers made in both the revisions are misconceived.

¶47

The petitioners, however, are at liberty to file appropriate application after settlement of the dispute in the Family Court and passing of decree for mutual divorce for appropriate relief against the order of conviction and sentence passed in Complaint Case No.560 of 2001 and affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2016.

¶48

With the above order, both the revisions are summarily dismissed.

¶49

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶50

mdrashid/-

¶51

U T

Bhagwan Seth v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Seth v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Sanjay Jaiswal @ Sanjay Jaiswal Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Ajijul Hak Vs The State of Bihar

Bashisth Yadav @ Bashisth Singh Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Seth Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Kr. Vs The State of Bihar