Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 667 (JHR)

Heeralal Prasad Verma v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-09-01

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner herein were convicted for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC and were sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of two years each by the trial Court by judgment dated 10.3.2004. The appellate Court also confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court by the judgment dated 31.5.2005. Against that the present revision application has been filed. 2. The petitioners are represented by Mrs. Vandana Singh whereas O.P. No. 2 Smt. Pushpa Verma is represented by Mr. K.P. Deo. 3. It is jointly stated and submitted that due to intervention of the well wishers and the close relatives of the parties now both the parties have compromised and have amicably settled their disputes. Now the O.P. No. 2 has no grievance left against the petitioners and she is peacefully living at her in- laws place. She is no more interested in pursuing with the case against her in- laws and, as such, it is prayed that the conviction against the petitioners be set aside keeping in view the matrimonial and conjugal life of both the husband and wife. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. while dealing with more or less a similar circumstance has held as follows :- "14. There is no doubt that the object or introducing Chapter XX-A containing Sections 498-A in the Indian Penal Code 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 relative to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper technical 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 the non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from setting earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code." 5. It was further held by the Supreme Court in the said case that the special features in such matrimonial matters are evident and, as such, it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 6. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code." 5. It was further held by the Supreme Court in the said case that the special features in such matrimonial matters are evident and, as such, it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 6. Though Section 498-A, IPC is not compoundable but even then the Supreme Court considering the fact that the parties, genuinely settled their disputes held that in such a situation in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr PC permission can be granted to compound the offence though it is not compoundable. 7. The facts of the present case are slightly different. Here in this case the petitioners have already been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC and, therefore, the question is as to whether at the revisional stage this Court can allow the parties to compound the offence under Section 498-A, IPC though it is not compoundable. 8. In my view, since the Supreme Court has already said in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (supra) that it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements in matrimonial disputes and any hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interest of women and against the object for which Section 498-A was added. If the parties are not allowed to compound the offence, in my view, it would amount to miscarriage of justice. 9. O.P. No. 2 Smt. Pushpa Verma, who is personally present in Court and has categorically, stated that she has compromised the case and has amicably settled the disputes and now she has no grievance against the petitioners. She is living with her in-laws having no complaints whatsoever and, therefore, I find that the settlement of the disputes appears to be genuine. 10. In such a situation, I allow the parties to compound the offence under Section 498-A, IPC so that O.P. No. 2 may lead a happy married life. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A is hereby set aside.