Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1187 (JHR)

Saheb Lal Murmu v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-01

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2014
ORDER : This Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.06.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.313 of 2003, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has partly allowed the appeal of the petitioners by acquitting them from the charge of Section 4 of the Dowry of Prohibition Act while upholding the conviction under Section 498A of the IPC and sentence of R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs.5000/-and in default of fine to undergo S.I for 3 months. 2. Brief facts of the informant's case is that the marriage between the informant/ O.P. No.2 (Sukarmani Manjhiain) and petitioner No.1 (Saheb Lal Murmu) was solemnized on 07.06.2001; that at the time of marriage, the father of the informant had given Rs.10,000/-as cash, one cycle, silver ornaments and other household articles; that after the marriage, the informant went to her sasural and started living her conjugal life. It is alleged that during her stay in sasural, all the petitioners started demanding one Hero-Honda motorcycle and due to non-fulfillment of the said demand, the informant was subjected to cruelty and torture. It is also alleged that on the day of Vijaydashmi, the petitioners mixed poison in the food of the informant and due to consumption of the same there was abortion of her 3 months old foetus; that due to non-fulfillment of the demand, the petitioners ousted the informant from her matrimonial home. The informant instituted a C.P. Case bearing No.1288 of 2001 under Section 498A, 328, 323, 406 of the I.P.C and 3 /4 of the Dowry of Prohibition Act accordingly, cognizance was taken by the learned CJM, Dhanbad, thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of S.D.J.M., Dhanbad whereafter the case was transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad for trial and disposal. 3. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad, on the basis of the evidence and material available on record, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 498Aof the IPC and 4 of the Dowry of the Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-and in default thereof to undergo S.I for 3 months and also sentenced them to undergo R.I for 6 month and fine of Rs.5000/-under Section 4 of the Dowry of Prohibition Act. Against the said judgment, appeal was preferred to the Sessions Judge who passed the order impugned in the present Revision Application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the brother-in-law, petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.4 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.5 is the maternal mother-in-law and petitioner No.6 is the maternal father-in-law respectively of the informant/ O.P. No.2; that they have filed an Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No.6125 of 2014 to exempt the petitioners from surrendering in the Court below in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the case and they have filed joint compromise petition being I.A No.6088/2014, as they have amicably settled their dispute out side the court and cordial relationship has been established between the parties. It has further been submitted that Nirsa P.S. Case No.01/2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No.10 of 2012 may be quashed in view of the fact that the parties have willingly compromised the case and the informant/ O.P. No.2 has now no grievances against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his argument, has relied on the decisions in the case of Ajit Kumar Sharma @ Jhunjhun & Ors Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2013) 3 JCR, 699 and in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors., Vrs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC, 675, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered on the need to curb the abuse of process of court in matrimonial cases where the parties have agreed to settle their dispute amicably by mutual agreement. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has not controverted the submissions and stated that the O.P. No.2 has amicably settled the matrimonial dispute with the petitioners and does not want to proceed with the case; that an affidavit has also been filed by O.P No.2 accepting and agreeing to the settlement. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and in view of the fact that the dispute between the parties is purely a matrimonial dispute, which has already been compromised between the parties and O.P. No.2 has now no grievances against the petitioners, this Court deems it just and proper in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi (Supra) to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Thus taking into consideration the interest of the parties and to secure the ends of justice, in the given emergent material facts and circumstances of the case, the compromise is accepted and the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.06.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.313 of 2013 as well as the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.09.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No.01 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No.10 of 2012 (T.R. No.596 of 2013) are hereby ordered to be set aside as the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes. Consequently the petitioners are acquitted of the charges. The petitioners are on bail and they are also discharged of the liabilities of their bail bonds. 8. In the result, the Cr. Revision application and Interlocutory Application Nos. 6125 of 2014 & 6088 of 2014 are hereby allowed and disposed of.