Jharkhand High Court
Geeta Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:31258 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 412 of 2016
Geeta Devi, W/o Ajay Sao, R/o Village- Morbe, P.O. & P.S. Manjhion,
District- Garhwa ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Reena Devi, W/o Hari Sao, D/o Sukhdev Sao, R/o Village- Chechariya,
Ataula, P.O. & P.S. Meral, District- Garhwa ... Opposite Parties
With
Criminal Revision No. 420 of 2016
1. Bhola Sao, S/o Late Ganeshi Sao
2. Hari Sao, S/o Bhola Sao
3. Kamla Devi, W/o Bhola Sao,
All are R/o Village- Badhadabar, P.O. & P.S. Nabinagar, District-
Aurangabad (Bihar) ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Reena Devi, W/o Hari Sao, D/o Sukhdev Sao, R/o Village- Chechariya,
Ataula, P.O. & P.S. Meral, District- Garhwa ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Apurv Krishna, Advocate (In both cases)
Ms. Priyanka Bobby, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. (In Cr. Rev.-420/16)
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate (In both cases)
-----
20/09.10.2025 Both the cases are arising out of the same complaint case and same
judgment of conviction and order of sentence and in view of that, these
petitions are being heard together with consent of the parties.
2. Heard Mr. Apurv Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Mahesh
Tewari, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.
3. These criminal revision petitions have been preferred for setting-aside
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.09.2012 passed
by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-IVth, Garhwa in Complaint Case
No.252/2006, corresponding to T.R. Case No.687/2012, whereby, the
-1- Criminal Revision No. 412 of 2016
With
Criminal Revision No. 420 of 2016
( 2025:JHHC:31258 )
petitioners have been convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. of one year along with fine of
Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they have been further
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month. The further prayer is
made for setting-aside the judgment dated 19.02.2016 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.55/2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa, whereby, the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.09.2012 passed by the learned
trial court has been modified to the extent that the petitioners have been
sentenced to undergo S.I. for four months with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in Criminal
Revision No.412 of 2016, the petitioner is sister-in-law of the informant. He
further submits that in Criminal Revision No.420 of 2016, petitioner no.1 is
the father-in-law of the informant, petitioner no.2 is the husband of the
informant and petitioner no.3 is the mother-in-law of the informant. He then
submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and
compromise has taken place and the informant and the petitioners are
residing together. He next submits that in view of that, compromise petition
has been filed in the form of I.A. No.1344 of 2025. He submits that all these
facts have been disclosed in the said I.A. and the said I.A. is also affidavited
on behalf of both the sides. He further submits that the husband and in-laws
will abide by the terms and conditions, as disclosed in the joint compromise
petition. He submits that since the compromise has taken place and the
matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute and in view of that, the matters
may kindly be disposed of.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it appears that
-2- Criminal Revision No. 412 of 2016
With
Criminal Revision No. 420 of 2016
( 2025:JHHC:31258 )
the compromise has taken place in light of the joint compromise petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the informant-opposite party no.2 is
also accepting the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and submits that now the informant is residing along with the
husband and in-laws and in view of that, these matters can be disposed of.
7. In view of the above and considering the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties as well as looking into the contents of the I.A., which
is meant for joint compromise, it appears that the matter has been
compromised between the parties and the wife is residing along with the
husband and in-laws and further considering that the matter is arising out of
matrimonial dispute and it is well-settled that even if the matter is not
compoundable and if such a situation is there that too after compromise
between the parties, the entire proceedings can be quashed in light of the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh
v. State of Punjab & another; [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and in Narinder
Singh & others v. State of Punjab & another; [(2014) 6 SCC 466.
8. In light of that, the compromise petition being I.A. No.1344 of 2025 is
allowed and disposed of.
9. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
19.09.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-IVth, Garhwa in
Complaint Case No.252/2006, corresponding to T.R. Case No.687/2012 and
the judgment dated 19.02.2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No.55/2012 by the
learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa are, hereby, set-aside.
10. Accordingly, these criminal revision petitions are allowed and
disposed of.
-3- Criminal Revision No. 412 of 2016
With
Criminal Revision No. 420 of 2016
( 2025:JHHC:31258 )
11. Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of.
12. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the concerned Court
forthwith.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 9th October, 2025
Ajay/
-4- Criminal Revision No. 412 of 2016
With
Criminal Revision No. 420 of 2016
