Sindhu Bhokta vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1951 Jhar

IN THE       HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. Revision No. 350 of 2015
                                  -------

Sindhu Bhokta @ Sindhu Pd. Bhoka ...... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ..... .... Opp. Parties

--------

CORAM :          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                                  --------
For the Petitioner        : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State             : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P

For the Opp. Party No.2 : Ms. Akriti Shree, Amicus Curiae

--------

14/ Dated 05.05.2023 Heard the parties.

The petitioner Sindhu Bhokta @ Sindhu Pd. Bhoka has filed this revision application against the judgment dated 05.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No.88/2012, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar partly allowed the criminal Appeal, filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2012 passed by Sri Dhruv Chandra Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Madhupur in connection with P.C.R Case No. 53/2006, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one and half years for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for two and half years for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, along-with a fine of Rs.1500/- and Rs.2500/- respectively and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo S.I for fifteen days and twenty days respectively. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, but affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

From perusal of the judgment of the learned Appellate Court, it appears that the parties have settled their dispute. Just because the offence under Section 498A I.P.C was non-compoundable, parties were not allowed to compound the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is aged about 61 years and the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 1983. It was further submitted that the parties have resolved their dispute. As such it was prayed that this revision application be allowed and the petitioner be acquitted of the charge.

Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajendra Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr., reported in (2022) Live Law (SC) 34, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that in case of bonafide settlement of dispute under Section 498A I.P.C., it is the duty of the Court to encourage the genuine settlement of the matrimonial disputes.

Reliance has also been placed by another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2020) 18 SCC 777 where the Hon'ble Apex Court, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, in a non- compoundable case, set aside the sentence of imprisonment and fine.

Ms. Akriti Shree, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 has appeared in this case. She has submitted that from the record, it appears that the parties have settled their dispute.

The issue whether the case under Section 498A I.P.C should be allowed to be compounded between the parties is no longer res-integra.

This Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in series of decisions have stated that the effort should be taken for resolution of the matrimonial dispute between the parties.

As the parties have already settled their dispute, no Lis remains to be adjudicated.

This revision application is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and as modified by the learned Appellate Court is hereby, set aside.

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

Before parting, I will like to record my appreciation for Ms. Akriti Shree, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this Court. The Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay her Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) for her services rendered as Amicus Curiae.

BS/                                                      (Ambuj Nath, J.)