Jharkhand High Court
Mohammad Rahmatullah Ali vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 17 February, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 2022
Mohammad Rahmatullah Ali ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kr. Ganjhu, Advocate
: Mr. Ashok Kr. Goel, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. B.R. Rochan, Advocate
---
08/17.02.2024 Learned counsels for the parties are present.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits on instruction
received from his client who was present in the Court on 16.02.2024, it
was submitted that the petitioner and the wife (opposite party no.2) have
been living amicably for the last two years and have amicably settled
their dispute. However, today the learned counsel has submitted that the
submission made earlier was incorrect when the learned counsel for the
opposite party No. 2 objected to the submissions made on 16.02.2024 on
the instruction of the opposite party no.2 present in the Court.
3. Upon this, the learned for the petitioner has submitted that the
submission was based on instructions and therefore, the learned counsel
as a person is not at fault.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his
arguments.
5. He has submitted that there is no specific date of occurrence with
regard to the demand for dowry. He has also submitted that the marriage
was solemnized on 03.12.2000 and the complaint case was filed on
08.08.2002 bearing Complaint Case No.50 of 2002. He has further
submitted that the complainant herself had exhibited talak/Khula
(Exhibit - 1) which was dated 20.04.2006 and it was her version that if
some money and land were given to her, she would not pursue the case
filed under section 498A and provision of Dowry Prohibition Act. The
learned counsel has submitted that the evidence before the learned court
has not been properly considered and, therefore, the order of conviction
is fit to be set aside. The learned counsel has also submitted that it has
come in evidence that the complainant had remained in her matrimonial
house till 2010.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties
has submitted that earlier also one F.I.R. was filed by the complainant
which ended in a compromise, still the petitioner did not mend his ways.
7. The learned counsel further submits that the complainant was
taken to hospital for treatment on 07.08.2002. This was on account of the
assault meted out to the complainant by the petitioner during which she
suffered a fracture. He submits that the argument of the petitioner that
there is no specific date is not correct, specific averments have been
made in the complaint petition which is supported by the evidence based
on materials on record.
8. The learned counsel has also submitted that there are concurrent
findings recorded by the learned courts and there is no scope for re-
appreciation of evidence and coming to a different finding. The learned
counsel has also submitted that all the basic ingredients for the offence
for which the petitioner has been convicted are satisfied in the present
case and no interference is called for.
9. The learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that on
account of incorrect submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on 16.02.2024, the opposite party no.2 had to come to Ranchi
from Khunti and she has also incurred certain expenses, and therefore,
some expenses be provided to compensate her as she does not have
sufficient source to support herself.
10. Because it stands admitted even from the side of the petitioner
that submissions made on 16.02,2024 were incorrect, this Court directs
the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the opposite party No.02
in cash by way of expenses incurred by her and deposit the receipt
thereof within a period of one week. The amount of Rs. 1,000/- can also
be given to counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 so that
the amount can be remitted to opposite party no. 02.
11. Arguments concluded.
12. Post this case for judgment on 21.03.2024.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
