Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 167 (JHR)

Kanti Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-01

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
ORDER By the Court.-Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on being satisfied with the grounds taken in the Interlocutory Application, the delay of twenty two (22) days in filing the criminal revision application is condoned. 2. I.A. No. 46 of 2012 stands disposed of. I.A. (Crl.) No. 50 of 2012. 3. An I.A. bearing I.A. (Crl.) No. 50 of 2012 has been filed, wherein, prayer has been made to exempt the petitioner from filing surrender certificate for entertaining this revision application. 4. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, one needs to file surrender certificate for entertainment of the revision application but the Division Bench has held that "that Rule would not override the power of the Court as enshrined under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 5. Before the Division Bench, matter was referred for settling the following issue : Whether when both the parties have compromised their case outside the Court and file a Joint compromise petition for compounding the offence under Section 320, Cr.P.C., in the revision application so filed by the petitioner, the said revision application can be posted for admission without surrender by the petitioner in the trial Court in view of the aforesaid Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules? 6. The said issue was decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the following terms:- However, in view of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that if a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is filed in the Revision Application, by the persons convicted for the offences under Sections 498A/34/323/406 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for exemption from surrendering on the basis of the settlement between the parties, one way or the other, before or after conviction, such petition can be posted before learned Single Judge and Section 320 Cr.P.C. or Rule 159 of the J.H.C. Rules will not create bar for the learned Single Judge in exercising the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in exempting the petitioners from surrendering in the trial Court, for entertaining or passing other orders as the Court may think fit and proper. 7. 7. Here in the instant case as has been stated on behalf of the parties that after the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was challenged before the appellate Court who affirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Then this revision application was filed and during pendency of the revision application the parties settled their disputes amicably, whereby, a joint compromise petition has been filed and under this situation the petitioner is exempted from filing surrender certificate. 8. Thus, this revision application is being entertained without their being surrender certificate. 9. Accordingly, I.A.(Crl.) No. 50 of 2012, is disposed of. Criminal Revision No. 711 of 2011. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being sister-in-law (Gotni) and other members of the in-laws' family of the complainant were put on trial for an offence under Section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This petitioner and other persons were convicted and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 11. That order was challenged before the appellate Court and the appellate Court affirmed the order, passed by the trial Court. 12. Being aggrieved with those two orders, this revision application has been filed. 13. It was submitted that other persons, in similar situation, had preferred Cr. Revision No. 482 of 2011 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was set aside vide order dated 2.9.2011, on the ground that the parties have entered into the compromise and, therefore, this application warrants to be allowed. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.06.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.06.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No. 54 of 2010 and judgment dated 31.07.2010 passed by the then learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 233 of 2006 (T.R. No. 661 of 2010) are hereby, set aside. 15. Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted from the charge levelled against him. 16. In the result this application stands allowed. Application allowed.