Jharkhand High Court
Baldeo Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Cr. Revision No. 767 of 2015
Baldeo Mahto, son of late Nando Mahto, resident of village & PO
Karmatand, PS Dugdha, District Bokaro ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Churamani Devi @ Churki Devi @ Charki Devi, wife of Baldeo Mahto,
resident of village & PO Karmatand, PS Dugdha, District Bokaro
... Opposite Parties
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mahto, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, APP
For the OP No. 2 : Mr. Jageshwar Mahto, Advocate
-------
Order No. 06/Dated: 09th December 2022
The petitioner has challenged the judgment in Criminal Appeal
No. 63 of 2013 which has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Bokaro on 26th July 2014.
2. By the aforesaid judgment, conviction and sentence of the
petitioner in CP Case No. 339 of 2004 under sections 498-A and 323 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) has been affirmed by the appellate Court.
3. It is pertinent to record that Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2013
qua Manjari Devi has been allowed and her conviction and sentence for the
aforesaid offences have been set-aside.
4. During pendency of the present criminal revision petition, a
joint compromise petition vide I.A. No. 5352 of 2020 has been filed.
5. This application is supported by the affidavit of Churamani
Devi @ Churki Devi who is wife of the petitioner.
6. In this application, it is stated that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes and now OP No. 2 has no grievance against her
husband.
7. It is further stated that OP No. 2 is happily living in her
matrimonial home.
8. Mr. Jageshwar Mahto, the learned counsel appearing for OP
No. 2 has affirmed the aforesaid facts pleaded in I.A. No. 5352 of 2020.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in
view of compromise between the parties conviction of the petitioner as
recorded in CP Case No. 339 of 2004 may be set-aside.
10. In support of the aforesaid submission the learned counsel for
the petitioner has referred to the judgment in "Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab" (2012) 10 SCC 303.
11. In "Gian Singh" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the
victim has been settled although the offences are not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of
criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in
the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an
end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the
ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have
harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that
seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and
it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim
have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid
compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable
in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of
serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences
of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude
under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can
have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having
arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership
or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the
wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim
have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the
fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the
High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash
the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is
satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any
likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the
criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice
shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive.
Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast
category can be prescribed."
12. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, more particularly, compromise between the parties which would instill
confidence in the matrimony of the parties, conviction and sentence of RI
for two years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- under section 498-A IPC passed against
the petitioner are set- aside.
13. Consequently, judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2013 is
also set-aside.
14. The petitioner has been granted bail vide order dated 05 th
October 2015 by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
15. The petitioner shall be discharged of liability of the bail bonds
furnished by him pursuant to the order dated 05th October 2015 passed by a
coordinate Bench of this Court.
16. Criminal Revision No. 767 of 2015 stands allowed.
17. I.A. No. 5352 of 2020 stands disposed of.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Tanuj/-
