Jharkhand High Court
Tabir Ansari @ Md. Tabir Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.857 of 2003
With
I.A. No.1035 of 2018
1. Tabir Ansari @ Md. Tabir Mian
2. Jebun Khatun
3. Sajada Khatun
4. Memun Khatun
5. Sabina Khatun
6. Jabbar Ansari ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Nivash Roy, Advocate
16/28.10.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel
for the State as also learned counsel for the informant.
2. The Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.270 of 2005 along with I.A. No.1036 of
2018 is separated from the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.857 of 2003 along with
I.A. No.1035 of 2018 in hand.
3. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and
order or sentence dated 27.05.2003 passed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, FTC, Deoghar, in S.C. case No.330 of 2001, arising out of
Madhupur P.S. Case No.165 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. No.440
of 2000 and T.R. No.889 of 2001, whereby and where under the
appellants have been convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and six
months and also fined Rs.1,000/- each and in default of fine, it is
further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
4. Learned counsel for the defence counsel further submitted that
a joint compromise petition was vide I.A. No.1035 of 2018, by which,
it has been pointed out that compromise has been taken place
between the husband and wife and their family members.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Nivas Roy appearing on behalf of the
informant stated that it is true that the compromise has taken place
long back in the year 2018.
6. Learned APP has also fairly submitted that it is a matrimonial
dispute and both the parties have compromised and settled their
dispute amicably and therefore, let this appeal be disposed of in
terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
7. The informant Hasina Khatoon is personally present before
this Court along with her counsel Mr. Nivas Roy and her husband
Tabir Ansari is also present along with his counsel Mr. Arvind
Kumar Choudhary.
8. It has been jointly submitted by learned counsels of both the
parties that compromise petition, earlier filed between the parties
vide I.A. No.1035 of 2018 as both the husband and wife have
resolved their dispute amicably and as per the terms and conditions
of compromise petition, they have been living peacefully,
harmoniously and in cordial atmosphere and there is no grievances
between the parties. This Court interacts with the husband-
appellant No.1 and also the informant-wife in presence of their
learned counsel and also in presence of learned APP and both the
husband and wife have jointly submitted that a male child has been
born also out of the wedlock recently in the year 2018 and they have
altogether three children and they want to lead happy matrimonial
life and the wife Hasina Khatoon categorically stated that she does
not want to pursue this case for the present. A child has also born
after compromise between husband and wife as disclosed to this
Court by both of them.
9. In this view of the matter and taking into consideration that
this case is purely a matrimonial dispute and the appellants were
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC,
it is just, fair and reasonable to dispose of this appeal in terms of the
compromise and settlement arrived at between the parties and to
that effect a joint compromise petition vide I.A. No.1035 of 2018 has
also been filed, which is supported by the affidavit and part of this
order.
10. From perusal of the contents of the settlement agreement of
compromise petition vide I.A. No.1035 of 2018, it is found that both
the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and they
have been leading happy conjugal life in cordial atmosphere. It has
also been pointed out that they have settled their dispute amicably
due to the intervention of the well-wishers, family friends and close
relatives and both have no grievance from each other. It has also
been stated that the appellant husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law
and brother-in-law of the informant-wife Hashina Khatoon and all of
them, have settled their dispute and have been leading a peaceful
life. It has also been stated that a son was also born out of the
wedlock recently three years back.
11. The husband, who is present in this Court, has given
undertaking that he will keep and maintain the informant-wife and
the children born out of their wedlock with all dignity and honour
and he will not cause any kind of cruelty, torture and harassment to
his wife in future and wife, who is also present in the Court submits
that she would respect her husband.
12. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts, this appeal
is disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition, which has
been filed by both the parties vide I.A. No.1035 of 2018, the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
27.05.2003 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Deoghar, in
Sessions Case No.330 of 2001, arising out of Madhupur P.S. Case
No.165 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. No.440 of 2000 and T.R.
No.889 of 2001, is hereby set-aside.
13. As such, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.857 of 2003 is allowed as above.
14. The I.A. No.1035 of 2018 filed therein is disposed of
accordingly.
15. Let the copy of this order and compromise petition along with
LCR be sent back forthwith to the concerned Court below.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar/
