Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 316 (JHR)

Md. Kalim v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-26

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Palamau in Cr. Appeal No.96 of 2007, affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 07.08.2007, passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltongang G.R. No.701 of 2000 corresponding to T.R. No.187 of 2007 whereby, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo R.I for two years and a fine of Rs.500/-each for the offence under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C, to undergo R.I for six months under Section 323 of the I.P.C, to undergo R.I for six months and fine of Rs.300/-each for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and in default to undergo additional S.I for four months. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution's case is that the marriage between the informant/ Jarina Bibi and Jasmuddin Ansari was solemnized in the year 1991 as per Muslim rites and custom; that her husband's behaviour was cordial towards her. At the time of marriage, her father had given gifts and in spite of that the petitioner Nos.01 to 04, who happen to be the father-in-law, Bhaisur, Gotni and Nand respectively, used to demand further dowry from her. That she was subjected to torture and cruelty due to non-fulfillment of the demand. That she informed her family members about the alleged demand and torture but due to impecunious condition her parents could not fulfill the demand due to which the petitioners used to assault her. That on 11.06.2000 when her father came to her sasural, the petitioners assaulted him with lathi and caused injuries to her father. That when she and her husband came to rescue him, they were also assaulted by the petitioners. That the petitioners entered into the house of the informant and took away the valuables and scattered the articles and after locking the house they ousted her from the matrimonial home. That the father of the informant tried to resolve the matter through a community panchayati, but the petitioners adopted a defiant stance. On the basis of information, Patan P.S. Case No.52 of 2000 was registered and after completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498(A), 448, 380, 323, 427, 34 I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition. That the father of the informant tried to resolve the matter through a community panchayati, but the petitioners adopted a defiant stance. On the basis of information, Patan P.S. Case No.52 of 2000 was registered and after completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498(A), 448, 380, 323, 427, 34 I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition. After taking cognizance, the learned CJM, Palamau transferred the case to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Palamau for trial and disposal. 3. Learned S.D.J.M., Palamau, on the basis of the material evidence available on record, found the petitioners guilty for the offence under Sections 498A, 323 of the IPC and 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced the petitioners to undergo R.I for two years and a fine of Rs.500/-each for the offence under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C and to undergo R.I for six months under Section 323 of the I.P.C and also sentenced them to undergo R.I for six months and fine of Rs.300/-each for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and in default to undergo further S.I for four months. Against the said judgment, appeal was preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge – IV, Palamau at Daogonganj, who passed the order impugned in the present Revision Application. 4. Learned counsel, for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners and the informant namely, Jarina Bibi have compromised the case and a joint compromise petition to this effect have been filed by both the parties, as per Annexure – 1 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the informant, stating that both the parties have compromised the case and they do not want to proceed with the case. It has further been submitted that order dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -IV, Palamau in Cr. Appeal No.96 of 2007 and order dated 07.08.2007, passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltongang G.R. No.701 of 2000 corresponding to T.R. No.187 of 2007 may be quashed in view of the fact that the parties have willingly compromised the case and the informant/Jarina Bibi does not have any grievance 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. 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. Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel for the informant has accepted that the informant has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners. That she does not want to proceed with the case and an affidavit has also been filed by the informant accepting and agreeing to the settlement/ compromise. 7. Considering the fact that the matter has already been compromised between the parties and the informant 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. Thus considering and keeping in view the interest of the parties and to secure the ends of justice, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the compromise is accepted and the judgment and order of conviction dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -IV, Palamau in Cr. Appeal No.96 of 2007 as well as the judgment and order of conviction 07.08.2007, passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. No.701 of 2000 corresponding to T.R. No.187 of 2007 are, hereby, ordered to be set aside considering the fact that both the parties have amicably resolved and settled their disputes. Consequently the petitioners are acquitted of the charges and they are directed to be released forthwith from jail custody if not wanted in any other case. 8. In the result, the Cr. Revision application stands allowed.