Sharavan Kumar Chauhan vs State Of Bihar And Anr

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order and judgment dated 12.6.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner bearing Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2017 against the

order and judgment dated 6.3.2017 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., 5th, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Complaint Case No. 29 (c) of 2010 (Trial No. 2041

of 2017), whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment of

three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, has been dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 had filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 29(c) of 2010, inter alia, alleging

therein that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with the petitioner herein on 7.5.2001 as per the Hindu Rituals and Custom and

huge expenditure was made by the father of the complainant and subsequently, a daughter was born out of the wedlock. It has been further alleged in

the said complaint case that the petitioner and other accused persons had indulged in torturing the opposite party no. 2 on account of non-fulfillment of

the demand for dowry and ultimately, the complainant was harassed and deserted by the petitioner on 3.1.2010, whereafter she came to her father's

house. It is submitted that the petitioner is working in the Indian Railways.

The court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth by the impugned order and judgment dated 6.3.2017 passed in Complaint case No. 29(c) of

2010 (Trial No. 2041 of 2017) had, except the petitioner herein, acquitted all the other accused persons, however, the petitioner was convicted under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three years and was imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in

default thereof, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of further one month. The petitioner had challenged the said judgment dated 6.3.2017

before the learned Sessions Court and the learned court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif by impugned judgment dated

12.6.2019 had affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentenced dated 6.3.2017 passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal

bearing Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2017, filed by the petitioner.

Without going into the details of the case, it would be sufficed to state here that the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the opposite

party no. 2 have jointly prayed before this Court that the matrimonial disputes have been settled amicably in between the petitioner and the opposite

party no. 2 and to that effect, a joint compromise petition with affidavits of both the parties have been filed before this Court on 18.9.2019.

It would be relevant to reproduce paragraph nos. 10 to 16 of the joint compromise petition filed before this Court on 18.9.2019 hereinbelow:-

“10. That under compromise opposite party no. 2 told the petitioner that she will compromise with the petitioner only in a such

circumstances, if the petitioner becomes ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 with full honour and dignity and petitioner will not harass

and humiliate, the opposite party no. 2 any time and petitioner will keep the minor girl aged about 16 years with him and will provide all the

facilities of daily routine and provide her for proper education and petitioner will have to provide all the maintenance cost according to

necessity. At this petitioner became ready and assured that he is ready to abide the terms and conditions of his wife i.e. opposite party no. 2

and he will not flee away from his liability.

That it is stated that the opposite party no. 2 also told the petitioner that if after filing of compromise petition and end of criminal case

through compromise petition if the petitioner will break the terms and conditions of compromise petition, then she will be freed to file

criminal case and other case of forgery, cheating and violation of the undertaking given before the Hon’ble Court. At this the petitioner

expressed his opinion that he is ready to abide all the terms and conditions of the opposite party no. 2 as well as the direction of this

Hon’ble Court.

That it is stated that under the compromising condition the petitioner will go to his posting place taking his wife i.e. opposite party no. 2

and his daughter and he will follow the terms and conditions of compromise petition.

That it is stated that the petitioner undertakes that he will not disobey the compromise petition and will honour the terms and conditions

of compromise petition.

That it is stated that opposite party no. 2 also assured under the terms and conditions of the compromise petition that she will not

unnecessarily vex the petitioner and she will try to settle the matter happily if any obstacle or any misunderstanding appears in between the

petitioner and opposite party no. 2.

That the opposite party no. 2 now wants that petitioner should be freed from the criminal liability of conviction through this compromise

petition.

That petitioner and opposite party no. 2 have decided to lead their conjugal life happily together with.

This Court had earlier directed the parties i.e. the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, who are the husband and wife to appear before this Court

so as to ascertain as to whether they are living peacefully with dignity as husband and wife or not. Today, the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2

are present in the Court and have supported the averments made in the compromise petition dated 18.9.2019 and have stated that they are having no

problem and they are living happily as husband and wife.

At this juncture, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the orders / judgments dated 6.3.2017 and 12.6.2019 be set aside for the

ends of justice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though offence is not compoundable in view of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code‟) but in several decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the different High Courts

including the Hon’ble Patna High Court have held that in cases of matrimonial disputes where the dispute gets settled between both the sides, all

the criminal proceedings even after conviction at the revisional or appellate stage, may be set aside in the interest of justice. Learned counsel has

placed reliance on the case of B.S.Joshi & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and in the case of Wasi Asgar & Ors. vs.

The State of Jharkhand & Anr passed in Cr. Revision No. 239 of 2015 on 15.07.2015.

The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has admitted the factum of compromise and the opposite party no. 2 appearing in person has also

submitted that she is living happily with her husband i.e. the petitioner herein and has got no problem, hence, has submitted that the complaint case in

question be quashed.

The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi (supra) is relevant, as far as the present case is concerned. The

Hon’ble Apex Court has decided the issue to the effect that in cases where FIR or complaint is filed by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 of

I.P.C., whether the prayer of the husband for quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise can be declined on the ground that the

offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. The Apex Court decided the issue in affirmative holding therein that High Court in

exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and in such circumstances Section 320 of the Code does not limit

or affect the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. In this judgment para 14 is most relevant, which is quoted hreinbelow:-

“14. 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 498-A 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. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.â€​

The principle laid down in the B.S.Joshi (supra) case squarely applies in the present case also. The complainant/wife has compromised the matter

with the husband i.e. the petitioner of the present case, and agreed to withdraw all cases including the present one. The Apex Court has remarked that

in such matters, hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interest of women and against the object for which this

provision was added. In the present case, since the matter has been compromised, Section 320 of the Code would not come in the way of exercising

the inherent powers of this Court coupled with the factum of this Court being vested with its inherent jurisdiction, as far as setting aside the conviction

of the petitioner under Section 498A of I.P.C is concerned.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the joint compromise petition filed before this Court, as also taking

into account the version of the husband and the wife, who are present in the Court and considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of B.S. Joshi (supra), I deem it fit and proper to set side the judgment of conviction and sentenced dated 6.3.2017 passed by the learned court

of ACJM 5th, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Complaint Case No. 29(c) of 2010 (Trial No. 2041 of 2017) as also the judgment dated 12.6.2017 passed by

the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2017.

The criminal revision petition stands allowed.