2025:JHHC:24334 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.822 of 2025 Saheb Singh, aged about 43 years, son of Late Sardar Joginder Singh, R/o. H. No.127, Zone No.4, PO & PS - Birsasnagar, Town Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) …. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mrs. Jagjit Kaur, W/o. Saheb Singh and Daughter of Sardar Gurdev Singh, R/o. Dev Niwas, Duplex No.2, Ratnam Apartment, Prakash Nagar, PO & PS- Telco, Town Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) ..... … Opp. Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl. PP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate ------ 4/19.08.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2. 2. This Cr. Revision is directed against the Judgment dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.137 of 2024, whereby the appeal preferred by petitioner is rejected and the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in G.R. Case No.1645 of 2006, arising out of Birsanagar P.S. Case No.168 of 2006, Trial Register No.01 of 2024 has been affirmed. 3. Mr. Das appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and O.P. No.2 herein, their marriage was solemnized on 14.11.2004. He has submitted that in due course, the matrimonial dispute arose between the parties and O.P. No.2 lodged the criminal case against the petitioner and others and in this background, the said Birsanagar 2025:JHHC:24334 2 P.S. Case No.168 of 2006 has been lodged under Section 498A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. He submits that during trial, rest of the accused persons have been acquitted, however only the petitioner has been convicted. Conviction order was challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has also been pleased to uphold the Judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal, however the petitioner has been acquitted under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and then petitioner has moved before this Court in Criminal Revision Jurisdiction 5. Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 accepts the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submits that with the intervention of common friends and relatives, the petitioner and O.P. No.2 has settled their dispute outside the Court. 6. Mr. Das submits that the grounds of settlement have been disclosed in Para-4 of the I.A. No.10916 of 2025, which has been filed for compromise on behalf of the petitioner and O.P. No.2. He submits that the said I.A. has been filed on separate affidavits of both the sides. He submits that the Petitioner and O.P. No.2 are also present in person in the Court. 7. He further submits that the petitioner in person has come along with two bank drafts of Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.11,00,000/- in terms of compromise. 8. He further submits that both the sides have decided to separate 2025:JHHC:24334 3 and both the parties are having no grievance against each other and decided not to pursue any litigation against each other, except the application of dissolution of marriage. 9. Both the parties have agreed to file application for divorce by mutual consent and have also undertaken to withdraw all the pending cases. 10. The compromise aspect arising out of Section 498-A of IPC has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. arising out of Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2022, arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.6840 of 2021, wherein in Para-7 & 8, it has been held as under: - “7. Having examined the matter appears that in its totality, it appears that the High Court, while disposing of revision petition with the application moved parties, did not pause to consider that maintaining of conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 498-A IPC 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 the respondent No. 2 both have reiterated their stand that they have resolved their disputes and are living together while leading a happy conjugal life. 8. Taking note of the object of Section 498-A IPC, the expected approach of the High Court in the event of bona fide settlement of disputes had been duly exposited by this Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another: (2003) 4 SCC 675, where this Court has underscored the duty of the Court to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial 2025:JHHC:24334 4 disputes and said 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, [(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 2025:JHHC:24334 5 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." 11. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 540. 12. Petitioner and O.P. No.2 are present in the Court and the Court has enquired with them about the settlement and they have jointly submitted that settlement has been made and they do not want to reside together. 13. Mr. Das, learned counsel has handed over two bank drafts to the O.P. No.2, who is present in the Court. 14. Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned counsel has identified the O.P. No.2. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances and considering the entirety of the matter including the undertaking, which has been brought on record in form of Interlocutory Application and it has further been pointed out that the daughter, born out of the said 2025:JHHC:24334 6 wedlock, will reside along with the mother. 16. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. 17. Consequently, the Judgment dated 07.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.137 of 2024 and the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur are hereby set-aside. 18. This Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending petition also stands disposed of. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of. 19. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) R.Kumar / AFR