Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1238 (JHR)

Nischal Parihar v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. K. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 26.07.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2015 by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the Judgment of Conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.09.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 2841 of 2011 (T.R. No. 323 of 2015 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2011, convicting the petitioner for the offence u/s 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and S.I. for 03 months respectively, has been affirmed. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and an application being I.A. No. 1053 of 2017 has been filed by way of joint compromise and pursuant to the terms and conditions of compromise, an amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs, as permanent alimony has already paid to the opposite party No. 2 by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that an application u/s 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual dissolution of marriage was also filed and the said suit has been allowed vide judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017 passed in Original Suit (MTS) No. 12 of 2017 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. Learned counsel further submits that since the parties have decided to separate and a decree of dissolution of marriage has already been passed, the judgment dated 26.07.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2015 by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad as also the Judgment of Conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.09.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 2841 of 2011 (T.R. No. 323 of 2015 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2011 be set aside in view of the terms and conditions so arrived at between the parties. 4. Mr. D. K. Chakrabarty, Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and submitted that opposite party No. 2 has already received Rs. 4. Mr. D. K. Chakrabarty, Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and submitted that opposite party No. 2 has already received Rs. 7 Lakhs, as permanent alimony and she does not have any grievance against the petitioner and therefore the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence be set aside. 5. Petitioner was proceeded against in a case instituted u/s 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2011. In the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is of committing assault upon the opposite party No. 2 on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. In course of trial, since the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and S.I. for 03 months respectively. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2015 which however was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, vide judgment dated 26.07.2016. 7. The application being I.A. No. 1053 of 2017 which is by way of a joint compromise reveals that the matter has finally been settled between the parties and the terms and conditions of settlement includes the present case as well as a case in which an application filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed against the petitioner vide order dated 26.02.2015 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad. It further appears that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 07 Lakhs to the opposite party No. 2 by way of permanent alimony out of which the petitioner has paid Rs. 04 Lakhs prior to filing of the said petition and Rs. 3 Lakhs was to be paid prior to decree prepared in the said petition. The said suit filed u/s 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been decreed vide judgment dated 14.07.2017 passed in Original suit (MTS) No. 12 of 2017 and the rest amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs has already been received by the opposite party No. 2, which fact has also been accepted by learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 8. 3 Lakhs has already been received by the opposite party No. 2, which fact has also been accepted by learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 8. Since the terms and conditions, which have been arrived at between the parties for settlement of the matter, have been adhered to and the opposite No. 2 does not have any grievance against the petitioner if the impugned judgments of conviction and the order of sentence are set aside, this application is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2015 by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and the Judgment of Conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.09.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 2841 of 2011 (T.R. No. 323 of 2015 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2011, convicting the petitioner for the offence u/s 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and S.I. for 03 months respectively, are hereby quashed and set aside. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.