Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 879 (JHR)

Wasi Asgar v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-28

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
ORDER : The three petitioners, by filing this revision application, has prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.07.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No.1214 of 2006 arising out of Patratu (Barkakana) P.S. Case No.101 of 2006 convicting them under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each with fine of Rs.1000/- each with default clause and also the judgment of affirmation dated 15.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No.98 of 2014. 2. The details of the fact is not required to be reproduced herein, rather a brief statement of facts would suffice the matter. At the instance of the informant- Salatun Nisha, the aforesaid case was instituted under Sections 498A/494/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet whereafter charges were framed against the petitioners under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the court after trial convicted the petitioners only under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as indicated above. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction of trial court, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Whereafter, this revision application has been preferred. During pendency of this revision application, a joint compromise petition has been filed by the petitioners and the informant/opposite party no.2- Salatun Nish, the wife of the present petitioner no.1, with the prayer to allow the parties to compound the case and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court as well as the judgment of the appellate court. An interlocutory application bearing no.2730 of 2005 was also filed by the petitioners with a prayer to exempt them from surrender in the court below in view of the Rule 159 of Jharkhand High Court Rules. 3. Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying upon the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr. 3. Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying upon the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 submitted that in a similarly situated case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code after compromise the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interests of woman and against the object for which this provision was added. The Hon’ble Court further held that it becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. It was also submitted that though Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not included in the schedule of Section 320 of the Code but in view of the above decision the parties may be allowed to compromise the case and the court in exercise of its inherent powers can acquit the petitioner from the charges and can set aside the conviction and sentences. Hence, the petitioners deserve to be acquitted in the light of the compromise. 4. Learned counsel representing the State and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2- Salatun Nisha (the informant) fairly submitted that since the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and have filed the affidavit to that extent a lenient view may be taken and the petitioners may be acquitted. 5. In B.S. Joshi & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr case (supra) which was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a similar situation arising out of a case instituted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code held in Paragraph-14 as follows:- “There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent 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 hypertechnical view would be counterproductive 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. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive 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 the Indian Penal Code.” Section 320 of the Code sets out the details of offences in different tables, which are compoundable by the parties and those, which are compoundable with the leave of the court. It is no doubt that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not included in the above list of Section 320 of the Code but in view of the ratio decided in the above B.S. Joshi & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr case (supra) it becomes the duty of the court to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. In another case Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2012) 10 SCC 303 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 51 held has follows:- “51. Section 320 of the Code articulates public policy with regard to the compounding of offences. It catalogues the offences punishable under IPC which may be compounded by the parties without permission of the court and the composition of certain offences with the permission of the court. The offences punishable under the special statues are not covered by Section 320. When an offence is compoundable under Section 320, abatement of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the accused is liable under Section 34 or 149 IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. A person who is under 18 years of age or is an idiot or a lunatic is not competent to contract compounding of offence but the same can be done on his behalf with the permission of the court. If a person is otherwise competent to compound an offence is dead, his legal representatives may also compound the offence with the permission of the court. Where the accused has been committed for trial or he has been convicted and the appeal is pending, composition can only be done with the leave of the court to which he has been committed or with the leave of the appeal court, as the case may be. Where the accused has been committed for trial or he has been convicted and the appeal is pending, composition can only be done with the leave of the court to which he has been committed or with the leave of the appeal court, as the case may be. The Revisional Court is also competent to allow any person to compound any offence who is competent to compound. The consequence of the composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 mandates that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. Obviously, in view thereof the composition of an offence has to be in accord with Section 320 and in no other manner. “ Admittedly, if the parties have settled their dispute and either revived relationship or decided to part their ways during trial, in such eventuality there would be almost no chance of conviction. In the instant case, the parties have settled their dispute and have compromised their case after conviction of the petitioners and its affirmation by the Appellate court. Even then in the interest of justice and in view of the ratio decide in above case, the continuation of proceedings, in the facts and circumstances stated above, would amount to abuse of the process of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that it becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. In the above judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the dispute can be settled at any stage and even the Revisional Court is also competent to allow any person to compound any offence who is competent to compound. Relying upon the ratio decided in the above case, the parties are allowed to compound the offence. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the Appellate court are, hereby, set aside. The two interlocutory applications bearing no.2576 of 2015 and 2730 of 2015 are, hereby, disposed of. 6. Accordingly, the revision application is, hereby, allowed and the petitioners are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bond.