Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 918 (GAU)

Samir Ghosh v. Chinu Das

2012-08-01

S.C.DAS

body2012
S.C. Das, J.— This is a petition jointly filed by the petitioner No.1, Sri Samir Ghosh and the petitioner No.2, Smt. Chinu Das, praying for compounding the Criminal Case instituted by petitioner no.2 against her husband which has been ended in conviction of petitioner No.2, Sri Samir Ghosh by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur in Case No. GR 133 of 2006 and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 8(2) of 2009. 2. Against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 8(2) of 2009, affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.04.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura in Case No. GR 133 of 2006, the present revisional application is filed by the petitioner No. 1, Samir Ghosh (husband). 3. On perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, I find that the petitioner No. 1, Sri Samir Ghosh was found guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2(two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment to suffer further S.I. for 6 months. The learned Sessions Judge while affirming the judgment and order of conviction reduced the sentence to the tune of R.I. for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 4 months. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. S. Sarkar that the husband and wife have now arrived at a settlement. Their matrimonial relation have broken irretrievably, since they are not in a position to live together and lead a happy conjugal life, they have decided to dissolve their marriage and have presented a petition for a decree of mutual divorce and that the petitioner No.2(wife) shall get life maintenance from the petitioner No.1 (husband). Learned counsel, Mr. Sarkar referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vrs. The State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 2003 AIR SCW 1842, submits that, Section 498(A) was introduced to contain the evil of cruelty on married women by their husband or relatives of the husband in the matrimonial home on demand of dowry or otherwise. The State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 2003 AIR SCW 1842, submits that, Section 498(A) was introduced to contain the evil of cruelty on married women by their husband or relatives of the husband in the matrimonial home on demand of dowry or otherwise. Since the provision has been made non compoundable, the parties willing to have a settlement cannot compound the offence and under such circumstances, the Apex Court directed that settlement in a given case may be allowed taking into consideration the facts of a particular case. 5. Learned Additional P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh submits that in view of the Supreme Court decision, the compromise may be accepted, but regarding the maintenance, the satisfaction of the court may be recorded. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels of both sides. The compromise petition is supported by affidavit sworn by both sides. The terms of compromise stated in Para 9 of the petition reads thus:-"9. That, the matter was settled up between the petitioner no. 1 and 2 with some conditions. The conditions of settlement are as follows:- a) That, the petitioner no. 1 would pay to the petitioner no.2 Rs.70,000/- as lifetime maintenance and the same has already been paid and the petitioner no.2 acknowledges receipt of the same. b) That, the petitioner no.2 will withdraw all the pending cases against the petitioner No.1. c) The petitioner no. 1 and 2 shall file a petition for divorce mutually as they feel that due to long lapse of time it would not be possible on their part to live together and in pursuance of such decision they have already filed Title Suit(Divorce) No. 11 of 2012 before the Ld. Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, South Tripura and the case is pending till now. d) That, the petitioners shall bear no grievance towards each other. e) That, the petitioner no. 1 has handed over all the stridhan articles of the petitioner no.2 and the petitioner no.2 acknowledges receipt of the same." Both the petitioners are examined orally in the open court. The wife-petitioner submits that she is satisfied with the amount of Rs.70,000/- paid by her husband and she does not like to continue her matrimonial relation with her husband and also she is ready to withdraw all her allegations against her husband. The wife-petitioner submits that she is satisfied with the amount of Rs.70,000/- paid by her husband and she does not like to continue her matrimonial relation with her husband and also she is ready to withdraw all her allegations against her husband. Because of the compromise arrived between the parties, she also does not like to see her husband punished in the cases instituted by her. Under such circumstances, she approached this court for allowing the compromise petition and thereby facilitates compounding of the offences. 7. In the case of B.S. Joshi (supra), a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 498(A) and 406 of IPC filed before the High Court was not allowed and against that order, the aggrieved party moved the Apex Court and Apex Court considering the settlement arrived between the parties that the matrimonial relation between them was so strained that they have decided to dissolve their marriage by a decree of mutual divorce, allowed the petition of compromise and held in Para 14 of the judgment thus:- "There is "no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A 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 hyper-technical view would be counter productive 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 Indian Penal Code." 8. In the present case, it appears that the parties have now decided to dissolve their marital tie by a decree of divorce and they have presented a petition before the appropriate court seeking mutual divorce. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner-wife submits that she does not like to proceed further with the criminal case and prays for allowing the compromise petition. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner-wife submits that she does not like to proceed further with the criminal case and prays for allowing the compromise petition. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, the prayer for compounding offences by way of compromise is allowed but the terms and condition of the compromise that the amount of Rs.70,000/- as her life maintenance may not stand in the way of her claiming any maintenance in future in case of her extreme exigency in life. The compromise prayer accordingly stands allowed. 10. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur in G.R. case No. 133 of 2006 and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 8(2) of 2009 are hereby set aside in view of the compromise arrived between the parties. Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of the judgment. 11. This Criminal Misc. Application accordingly stands disposed of. _____________