Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 349 (JHR)

Binod Hari v. State of Jharkhand

2009-03-05

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.3.2007 passed by Sri Ravi Kumar Sahay, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, by which judgment he has dismissed the appeal confirming the earlier judgment and sentence dated 24.1.2005 passed by Shri Shwaymbhu, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, wherein he found the petitioners guilty under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo further imprisonment for two months in default of payment of fine, with a direction that both the sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. 3. The complainant, Sunita Devi has also appeared in the Court through her lawyer and both the parties filed a Joint Compromise Petition, which is I.A. No. 2505 of 2008, wherein it is...submitted that both the parties (husband and wife) have settled the dispute outside the court and as per the settlement, the complainantwife (Sunita Devi) has received a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lakh) and the matter is pending before the Family Court, Bokaro in M.P. Case No. 18 of 2006. A draft of Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lakh) has already been deposited by the husband Binod Hari which she will receive after the final order passed in M.P. Case No. 18 of 2006. 4. In that view of the matter, the parties want that this matter should be disposed of, since the complainant, who is the wife of the petitioner No.1, Binod Hari, does not want to prosecute her husband and other in-laws. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Hiralal Prasad Verma and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2005(4) JCR Page 428. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also got no objection if the parties are allowed to compound the case in this extraordinary situation. 7. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Hiralal Prasad Verma and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2005(4) JCR Page 428. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also got no objection if the parties are allowed to compound the case in this extraordinary situation. 7. After hearing both the parties and going through the impugned judgment passed in Hiralal Prasad Verma, I find that relying on the decision of the Honoble Supreme Court reported in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003)4 SCC page 675, the Hon'ble Court found that the aim of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which is in chapter 20A is to prevent the torture of woman by her husband and his relatives. That is why, it had not been made compoundable, but a hyper-technical view will be counterproductive and would act against the interest of a woman and against object for which the provision was added. 8. Considering that view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Hon'ble Court in the case of Hiralal Prasad Verma allowed the complainant-wile to compound the case and accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners was set aside. 9. Here, also the situations are very similar, the complainant-wife has filed Joint Compromise Petition by the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant, Sun ita Devi submits that before the Principal Judge,. Family Court, Bokaro, she had filed an affidavit on 22.7.2008 stating therein that now she will withdraw all the criminal. cases pending against her husband and in-laws including that pending in the Hon'ble High Court. 10. Since, the complainant now wants to live a peaceful life after compromise and does not want to prosecute this case, in that view of the matter, in the interest of justice as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, .as well as by this Hon'ble Court, both the parties are allowed to compromise the case. 11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Sri Ravi Kumar Sahay, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad is hereby set aside. The petitioners shall be released from the bondage of the Court. Hence, this revision application is allowed.