Islam Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3636 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Criminal Revision No. 237 of 2015

Islam Ansari, s/o Late Abdul Ansari, r/o Village-Nero, PO-Govindpur, PS-
Govindpur, District-Dhanbad, State-Jharkhand              .... . Petitioner
                                 Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Arfa Khatoon, d/o Siddique Ansari, PO-Kumardih, PS-Tundi, District-
Dhanbad, State-Jharkhand                              ... Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner    : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the State         : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP
For OP No.2           : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
                                -------

th Order No.5 /Dated: 12 September 2022

The petitioner is aggrieved of the judgment in G.R Case No. 1683 of 2005 corresponding to T.R No.553 of 2010 by which punishment of RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/- under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was imposed upon him along with 3 other co-accused persons.

2. In Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2010, the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon Momina Bibi, Sairun @ Khairun Bibi and Hasimuddin Ansari was set-aside by the appellate Court.

3. The petitioner against whom Criminal Appeal No.160 of 2010 was dismissed has approached this Court by filing the present criminal revision petition.

4. Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned APP states that in compliance of the order passed on 20th July 2022, a copy of the order has been communicated to the petitioner.

5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the application dated 23 rd August 2022 to submit that now the parties have amicably settled their dispute in terms of Panchnama dated 20th February 2022 which was executed on the judicial stamp paper dated 17th February 2022.

6. A copy of the aforesaid Panchnama dated 20th February 2022 has been brought on record.

7. OP No.2 is represented through Mr. Ranjan Kumar, the learned 2 Criminal Revision No. 237 of 2015

counsel.

8. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Manohar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr." (2014) 13 SCC 75 to submit that compromise between the parties is an important factor which may be taken into consideration while examining the order of sentence passed against the petitioner.

9. In "Manohar Singh" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"6. Section 498-A IPC is non-compoundable. Section 4 of the Dowry Act is also non-compoundable. It is not necessary to state that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded by a court. While considering the request for compounding of offences the court has to strictly follow the mandate of Section 320 of the Code. It is, therefore, not possible to permit compounding of offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Act. However, if there is a genuine compromise between husband and wife, criminal complaints arising out of matrimonial discord can be quashed, even if the offences alleged therein are non- compoundable, because such offences are personal in nature and do not have repercussions on the society unlike heinous offences like murder, rape, etc. (see Gian Singh v. State of Punjab). If the High Court forms an opinion that it is necessary to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure ends of justice, the High Court can do so. The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is not inhibited by Section 320 of the Code. Needless to say that this Court can also follow such a course."

10. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that the petitioner has remained in custody for about two and a half months from 19th February 2015 to 30th April 2015.

11. In view of the compromise between the parties which is reduced into writing in Panchnama dated 20th February 2022, the order of sentence of one year with fine of Rs.500/- dated 3 rd July 2010 passed against the petitioner under section 498-A is set-aside while affirming the order of conviction.

12. The petitioner is sentenced to the period undergone by him.

13. By an order dated 30th April 2015, the petitioner was released on bail. Now, the bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand discharged.

14. Criminal Revision No. 237 of 2015 is partly allowed, in the aforesaid terms.

3 Criminal Revision No. 237 of 2015

15. I.A No.7740 of 2022 stands disposed of.

16. Let the lower Court records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.

17. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through "Fax".

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) sudhir