[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Pawan Kumar Sahu (Deleted In View Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:37683 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 669 of 2017
1. Pawan Kumar Sahu (Deleted in view of order dated 01.12.2022)
2. Deepak Sahu @ Deepak Prasad, son of Sri Lakhu Sahu
3. Smt. Mani Devi, wife of Sri Lakhu Sahu
4. Lakhu Sahu, son of late Ganesh Sahu
All are residents of village-Saldega, Tongritoli,
P.O. and P.S. Simdega, District-Simdega (Jharkhand) ... Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Pinki Devi, wife of Shri Pawan Kumar Sahu, resident of village Simdega
Church Road, Ghochotoli, P.O. and P.S. Simdega , District-Simdega
.....Opposite Parties
With
Cr. Revision No. 764 of 2017
Anand Sahu @ Anand Prasad, son of Sri Lakhu Sahu, resident of village-
Saldega, Tongritoli, P..O. and P.S. Simdega, District-Simdega (Jharkhand)
...... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Pinki Devi, wife of Shri Pawan Kumar Sahu, resident of village Simdega
Church Road, Ghochotoli, P.O. and P.S. Simdega District-Simdega
... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners :Mr. Ramchandar Sahu, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl. P.P
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Chandan Kr. Bhagat, Advocate
22/ 16.12.2025: Since both the criminal revision petitions are arising out of
same Complaint Case and same judgement, hence both the criminal revision
petitions are heard together with the consent of the parties.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the
State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Criminal Revision
No. 669 of 2017 is already abated as petitioner no.1-namely, Pawan Kumar
Sahu who is husband of O.P. No.2 has left for his heavenly abode and his name
has already been deleted in the light of order dated 01.12.2022 from the array
of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that rest of the
petitioners in both the revision applications are inlaws of the informant. He next
( 2025:JHHC:37683 )
submits that both the revision petitions have been preferred for setting aside
judgment dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2014 whereby learned Additional Sessions
Judge has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal and affirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.07.2014 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in Complaint Case No. 71/2011 (T.R.
No. 82/2014) whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the charges
under sections 323, 498A of I.P.C. and under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1861 and further they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of
Rs. 1,000/- for the charge under section 498A of I.P.C. and R.I. for one year
and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the charge under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 and no separate sentence was passed for the charge under section 323 of
the I.P.C. holding that the petitioners have been sentenced for the charge under
section 498-A of I.P.C committing physical torture subjected to cruelty on the
complainant, in default of payment of fine, the petitioners were directed to
further undergo S.I for three months and all the sentences were directed to run
concurrently, has been affirmed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
matter has been sent for settlement before the Member Secretary, JHALSA,
Ranchi and both the sides appeared and the matter has been settled. He further
submits that the matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute and husband of
the complainant has already left for his heavenly abode. He further submits that
in terms of settlement it was agreed that a land measuring 1.25 decimals be
purchased in the name of the son of the O.P. No.2 and one two storeyed
building be constructed by the petitioners in main Simdega town with all the
amenities (water and electricity connection) as promised in the settlement
paper by the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the O.P. No.2 complainant will not
make any further claim over the share part of the house situated in Simdega
( 2025:JHHC:37683 )
that belonged to petitioner no.1-husband of the O.P. No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that efforts have
been taken and the said purchase has been done in Simdega town and house
has already been constructed however, sale deed has to be executed in favour
of the son and in this regard O.P. No.2 along with her son may appear on any
date thereafter sale deed will be executed in favour of son and in that view of
the matter, both these criminal revision applications may kindly be disposed of.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the matter was sent for
mediation by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court before the Member Secretary,
JHALSA and the matter has been settled and mediation report of JHALSA is
already on record and in view of the matter these revision petitions can be
disposed of.
8. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 accepts the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the matter has been settled
between the parties however sale deed has not been executed as yet and in
view of that petitioner no.4-Lakhu Sahu may kindly directed to execute the
sale deed in favour of son of O.P. No.2. He further submits that in both the
petitions separate joint compromise petitions have been filed by way of I.A.
Nos.118/2024 and 4382/2024 on separate affidavit of both sides and in view of
that these revision applications may kindly be disposed of with direction to the
petitioner no.4-Lakhu Sahu to execute sale deed in favour of son of O.P. No.2
in terms of settlement on any date fixed by this Court.
9. In course of argument, photographs of constructed house has
been produced which is taken on record. The case is arising out of matrimonial
dispute. The petitioners are inlaws of the O.P. No.2. The husband of the
complainant has already left for his heavenly abode. The matter was sent for
mediation before the JHALSA, where both the sides have appeared and the
matter has been settled and the mediation report is on record and in view of
( 2025:JHHC:37683 )
that joint compromise petitions have been filed in both the petitions by way of
I.As. on separate affidavit of both sides.
10. Taking note of object of section 498A of I.P.C, the Court is
expected having the approach in the event of bonafide settlement of dispute
as held in the case of " B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana"
reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 wherein paragraphs 12 to 16 it has been held as
under:-
"12. The special features in such matrimonial matters
are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
13. The observations made by this Court, though in a
slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad &
Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the
approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by
the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume
serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in
which elders of the family are also involved with the result that
those who could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as
accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their
defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it
takes years and years to conclude and in that process the
parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in
different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal
Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or
by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a
view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or
torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful
demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter
productive and would act against interests of women and
against the object for which this provision was added. There is
every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash
the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent
women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter
XXA of Indian Penal Code.
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code
does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the
Code.
16. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the
impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR
above mentioned."
( 2025:JHHC:37683 )
11. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Bitan Sengupta vs The State Of West Bengal " reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 366.
12. In view of above discussions and considering that the matter is
arising out of matrimonial dispute, settlement is already made as such petitioner
no.4-Lakhu Sahu will execute the sale deed in favour of son of the O.P. No.2
in the month of January, 2026 and learned counsel for the parties are giving
their consent as 19.01.2026. The O.P. No.2 along with her son will appear
before the District Sub-Registrar, Simdega and on that date father-in-law who is
petitioner no.4-Lakhu Sahu (in Cr. Revision No. 669/2017) shall execute the sale
deed in favour of the son of the O.P. No.2.
13. In the aforesaid view taken note of in the joint compromise as
stated in the applications filed in the form of interlocutory applications which
include undertaking of the petitioner no.4-Lakhu Sahu to execute the sale deed
in favour of the son of O.P. No.2, settlement is hereby accepted and further
considering the aforesaid judgments and also the judgments in the case of
Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014)
6 SCC 466, and in the case of " Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr."
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the judgment dated 19.04.2017 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of
2014 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.07.2014
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in Complaint Case No.
71/2011 (T.R. No. 82/2014), are set aside.
14. Both the criminal revision petitions are allowed and disposed of.
Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated. 16.12.2025
Satyarthi-
