Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 666 (JHR)

Moin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2022-06-15

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP and Ms. J. K. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 30.8.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.4, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 1997; whereby the Appellate Court has acquitted the five other accused persons but has confirmed the conviction and sentence dated 30.4.1997 against this petitioner passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No.400 of 1991, T.R. No.80/97, whereby the learned trial court has convicted the petitioner under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year. 3. The prosecution case in short is that in the month of May, 1981 O.P.No.2 was married with the petitioner according to Muslim rites and ritual. The relation between the husband and wife remained cordial for some time after the marriage and they were blessed with a son. Thereafter, the petitioner started torturing the O.P.No.2 for demand of motorcycle and on non-fulfillment of demand by the petitioner the O.P.No.2 was subjecting cruelty. In the meantime petitioner also fell in love with one girl which cropped up trouble and the petitioner was compelled to leave the place and without giving any reason petitioner left the place and started living at his native place at Jario. When petitioner left his wife and child uncared, the complainant along with his daughter/O.P.No.2 came to his native place where the petitioner absolutely refused to keep his wife without fulfillment of motorcycle. Finding no way, the complainant brought his daughter and grandson to his house and filed this complaint case against the accused persons. 4. At the outset, Mr. Mohit Prakash learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise has already been arrived at between the parties during pendency of proceeding and now both the parties are living separately and happily. He further submits that the very fact that this criminal case was lodged after the divorce was taken place between the parties under the Muslim Personal Law, the conviction is bad in law. He further referred to the judgment passed in the case of Mohammad Miyan & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. He further submits that the very fact that this criminal case was lodged after the divorce was taken place between the parties under the Muslim Personal Law, the conviction is bad in law. He further referred to the judgment passed in the case of Mohammad Miyan & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (in criminal Appeal No.1048 of 2018 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.4122 of 2016), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “In view of her own averment that she was divorced four years ago, we are of the view that the prosecution is not sustainable under Section 498A of the IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.” He further contended that since compromise has already been arrived at between the parties the petitioner should be acquitted. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Rajendra Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (in criminal appeal No.2 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6840 of 2021) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when there is private dispute which is predominantly civil in nature specifically matrimonial disputes where compromise has already been arrived at between the parties, the convicted person can be acquitted on the basis of compromise. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be acquitted. 5. Learned APP and learned counsel for the O.P.No.2, Ms. J.S. Mazumdar, supported the contention of the petitioner and fairly submit that they are having no objection if the petitioner is acquitted. 6. In view of the admitted facts that before institution of the criminal case under Section 498(A) of the IPC the divorce under Muslim Law has already taken place, prosecution under Section 498(A) of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act is not sustainable. It further transpires from the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court that compromise has already been arrived at between the parties. In view of the aforesaid facts interest of justice would be sufficed by acquitting the petitioner from the charges. Even otherwise both the parties are living separately and happily. Thus relying on the settled proposition that compromise has been arrived at between parties and it is a matrimonial dispute which is private in nature, interest of justice demands that petitioner should be acquitted. 7. Even otherwise both the parties are living separately and happily. Thus relying on the settled proposition that compromise has been arrived at between parties and it is a matrimonial dispute which is private in nature, interest of justice demands that petitioner should be acquitted. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the judgment dated 30.8.2003 passed by the Appellate Court whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.1997 against this petitioner passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, has been affirmed is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, and to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 10. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.