1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1483 of 2016 ------ 1. Jabbar Ansari @ Jabbar Mian 2. Muslim Mian 3. Naibun Bibi @ Nabun Bibi ……Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sajbun Bibi ....…Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P For the O.P No. 2 : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate ------ Order No: 14/ Dated: 24.01.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 19.09.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2014 by Shri Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar by which the appeal filed by the O.P No. 2 Sajbun Bibi was allowed and the petitioners namely Jabbar Ansari @ Jabbar Mian, Muslim Mian and Naibun Bibi @ Nabun Bibi were held guilty for the offence under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Jabbar Ansari @ Jabbar Mian was sentenced to undergo R.I for three (3) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 50,000/- whereas, Muslim Mian and Naibun Bibi @ Nabun Bibi were sentenced to undergo R.I for one (1) year each and to pay the fine of Rs. 10,000/- each respectively by reversing the judgment of acquittal dated 06.05.2014 passed by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Deoghar in P.C.R Case No. 290 of 2007, T.R No. 48 of 2014. 2 I.A (Cr.) No. 13444 of 2024 I.A (Cr.) No. 13444 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of both the sides by way of Joint Compromise Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court dated 19.09.2016 is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted the petitioners and O.P No. 2 have settled their dispute and they have filed Joint Compromise Petition by filing I.A (Cr.) No. 13444 of 2024 and the petitioners has paid Rs. 1,70,000/- to the O.P No. 2 Sajbun Bibi by way of one time settlement as well as permanent alimony and they have settled their dispute and hence, the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2016 passed by the learned Appellate Court may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may by allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has raised no objection. 4. Learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 also supported the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the case has been compromised between the petitioners and O.P No. 2. It is submitted that O.P No. 2 has received Rs, 1,70,000/- by way of permanent alimony towards full and final settlement and hence, she has no objection if this Criminal Revision application is allowed. 5. Perused the I. A (Cr.) No. 13444 of 2024, records of this case and L.C.R and considered the submission of both the sides. 6. Paragraph Nos. 5 to 12 of the I.A (Cr) No. 13444 of 2024 reads as follows:- “Para:-5 It is stated that the matrimonial dispute between the parties which was settled in Execution Case No. 17 of 2010 in which both the parties filed a Joint Compromise 3 Petition dated 05.11.2019 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar disposed the Execution Case No. 17 of 2010 vide order dated 05.11.2019, thereafter, there is no grievance between the parties. Para:-6 It is stated that both the parties have settled their dispute in between them for which the petitioners paid Den Mohar and Iddat Cost as well as permanent alimony of Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rupees: One Lac and Seventy Thousand) to the Opp. Party No. 2. Para:-7 It is stated that the charge has been framed for offence under Section 498 (A), 34 of the I.P.C and this offence is compoundable in nature and both the parties became ready to compromise the aforesaid case and has been settled all disputes in between them. Para:-8 It is stated that Opposite Party No. 2 states that he has got no grievance regarding the P.C.R Case No. 290/2007 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 48/2014 under Section 323, 498 (A), 406 of the I.P.C and 3/4 of D.P Act, now ready to compromise the aforementioned case. Para:-9 It is submitted that as the parties have settled the matter outside of the Court, hence the instant Criminal Revision Application filed by the petitioners may be allowed in terms of this present Joint Compromise Petition filed by the parties before the Hon’ble Court. Para:-10 It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is husband of the O.P No.. 2 and the petitioner no. 2 and 3 are the father- in-law and mother-in-law of the O.P No. 2. Para:-11 It is submitted that as the parties have settled the matter outside of the Court, hence, there is no grievances exist between the parties as on date. Para:-12 It is submitted that the petitioners and 4 complainant (O.P No. 2) and the dispute differences have been settled in between the parties from the outside the Court for which a Joint Compromise Petition filed before this Hon’ble Court, in that circumstances opposite party no. 2 has no objection if the prayer of the present petitioners be allowed since the allegation in complaint case is matrimonial dispute”. 7. The above I.A (Cr.) No. 13444 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioners and O. P No. 2 and they have put their respective signatures on the Joint Compromise Petition and even Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 have put their respective signatures in the above Joint Compromise Petition filed vide I.A (Cr.) No. 13444 of 2024 and the petitioners and the O.P. No. 2 have also sworn their respective affidavits dated 14.11.2024 which have been kept at Page 8, 9 and 10 respectively to this I.A (Cr.) No. 13444 of 2024 along with their respective Aadhar Cards. 8. It has been held in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. Versus State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 at para 13, 14, 15 and 17 as follows:- “Para 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4) “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In 5 quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” Para 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different 6 complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” Para 15:- In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21) “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12) ‘12. … There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute 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.’ The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” Para 17:- The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances -17- expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, 7 if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” 9. It has been held in the case of Bitan Sengupta and Another versus State of West Bengal and Another reported in 2018 (18) SCC 366 at Para- 6 and 7 which are as follows:- “Para:-6 As per the appellants, the parties have settled the matter, as they have decided to keep harmony between them to enable them to live with peace and love. The compromise records that Respondent 2 have no grievances whatsoever against the appellants and want both the appellants to get acquitted from the cases. Further, both the parties have undertaken not to indulge in any litigation against each other and withdraw all the complaints pending between them before the court. Para:-7 In the aforesaid circumstances and going by the spirit of the law laid down by this Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] , we are of the opinion that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and compounded the offences. It is, more so, when the settlement between the parties, who were husband and wife, was even acted upon as the parties took mutual divorce on that basis”. 10. It has been held in the case of Rajendra Bhagat versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2022 (18) SCC 465 which are as follows:- “Para:-8 Having examined the matter in its totality, it appears that the High Court, while disposing of the revision petition with the application moved by the parties, did not pause to consider that maintaining of conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 498-AIPC would not be securing the ends of justice and with such conviction being maintained and the appellant losing his job, the family would again land itself in financial distress which may ultimately operate adverse to the harmony and happy conjugal life of the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Respondent 2 both have reiterated their stand that they have resolved their disputes and are living together while leading a happy conjugal life. Para:-9 Taking note of the object of Section 498-AIPC, the expected approach of the High Court in the event of bona fide settlement of disputes had been duly exposited by this Court 8 in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] , wherein this Court has underscored the duty of the Court to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes and said as under : (SCC pp. 682-83, paras 12-16) “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 [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a 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 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A 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 hypertechnical view would be counterproductive 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 XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860. 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 abovementioned.” 9 Para:-10 The same view has been reiterated by this Court in Bitan Sengupta v. State of W.B. [Bitan Sengupta v. State of W.B., (2018) 18 SCC 366 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 719] Para:-11 In the aforesaid view of the matter, and taking note of the terms of settlement as stated in the application moved before the High Court which include the undertaking of the appellant that he would be nominating Respondent 2 as the nominee in his service record; and where the parties are said to be leading a happy conjugal life, we are clearly of the view that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and quashed all the proceedings with annulment of the orders against the appellant. The High Court having not done so, we are inclined to adopt this course so as to secure the ends of justice. Para:-12 Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and while allowing IA No. 6052 of 2020 moved before the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 910 of 2019, all the proceedings arising out of the said FIR No. 204 of 2014 are quashed qua the appellant. Obviously, the order of conviction of the appellant is set aside. 11. It appears that the petitioners were released on bail vide order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay) of this Court. 12. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 and also in view of the averments made in Paragraph Nos. 5 to 12 of I.A (Cr.) No. 13444 of 2024, the parties are directed to get the case compromised accordingly. 13. Accordingly, the judgment dated 19.09.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2014 by Shri Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar by which the petitioners namely Jabbar Ansari @ Jabbar Mian, Muslim Mian and Naibun Bibi @ Nabun Bibi were held guilty for the offences under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner no. 1 Jabbar Ansari @ Jabbar Mian was sentenced to undergo R.I for three (3) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 50,000/- whereas, petitioner no. 2 and 3 10 namely Muslim Mian and Naibun Bibi @ Nabun Bibi were sentenced to undergo R.I for one (1) year each and to pay the fine of Rs. 10,000/- each respectively by reversing the judgment of acquittal dated 06.05.2014 passed by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Deoghar in P.C.R Case No. 290 of 2007, T.R No. 48 of 2014, is set aside in the interest of justice and in the light of Joint Compromise Petition filed by both the parties. 14. Accordingly, the petitioners namely Jabbar Ansari @ Jabbar Mian, Muslim Mian and Naibun Bibi @ Nabun Bibi are acquitted for the offence under Section 498 (A)/34 of I.P.C and the petitioners are discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds. 15. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 1483 of 2016 and I.A (Cr.) No. 13444 of 2024 are allowed in terms of compromise and stand disposed of. 16. Pending I.A if any, stands disposed of. 17. Let the original Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Court below at once by the office. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Avinash/