1 2025:JHHC:37864 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr. Revision No. 1414 of 2023 ---- Salim Sk aged about 23 years son of Jamidar Sk., resident of Village Anjana PO Anjana PS Pakur (M), District Pakur, Jharkhand …… …. .... Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand …… ….. .... Opp. Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rajnish Vardhan, Advocate For the O.P.no.2 :- Md. Shahrukh Ansari, Advocate ---- 9/17.12.2025 This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.3.2015 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur, in connection with Pakur (M) P.S. Case No.207 of 2014, G.R. No.459 of 2014, T.R. No.19 of 2015 and the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, at Pakur, in Cr. Appeal No.10 of 2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the J.J. Board Pakur has been pleased to convict the petitioner for a period of 1 ½ years for committing offence under section 498A IPC read with section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and further directed that the period already undergone shall be set off against the detention period of three years as provided under Rule 97(4) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2017. He further submits that the learned appellate court by the judgment dated 15.7.2022 in Cr. Appeal No.10 of 2015 has been pleased to modify the detention of the six months and fine of Rs.5000/- under section 498A IPC and for detention of six months and fine of Rs.5000/- under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of 2 judgment of learned courts the petitioner was juvenile and in view of that, the said sentence has been passed in light of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. He then submits that the matter is arising out of section 498A IPC and petitioner and O.P.No.2 are residing together and both are major now. He next submits that compromise has been reached between the parties and IA has been filed being IA No.7237 of 2024. He then submits that in view of the said I.A and considering the allegation this criminal revision petition may kindly be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for State submits that matter is arising out of section 498A IPC and from the IA it transpires that both the parties are residing together. 5. Md. Shahrukh Ansari, the learned counsel submits that Advocate on record Mr. Uttam Kumar Das has not been able to come to the Court as his mother has left for her heavenly abode and he has been instructed to appear in this case and in view of that he is appearing in the instant case. He then submits that he has got instruction that the IA has been filed for compromise and both of them, the petitioner and the O.P.no.2, are residing together and in view of that the IA may kindly be allowed and this criminal revision petition may kindly be disposed of. 6. In view of above submission of the learned counsels for the parties, it transpires that in the IA it has been stated that the petitioner and O.P.No.2 are residing together and the said IA is on separate affidavits of both the sides and at the time of judgment the petitioner was juvenile and in view of that, the aforesaid sentence has been passed by the learned courts and now they are major and it has been pointed out that both of them are residing together. 3 7. In light of above and considering the nature of section 498A IPC and in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 wherein at paragraph nos.12 to 16 wherein 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 [(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 4 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.” 8. In view of above, this criminal revision petition is allowed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 9. Consequently, the petitioner is hereby acquitted in light of the judgment dated 30.3.2015 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur, in Pakur (M) P.S. Case No.207 of 2014, G.R. No.459 of 2014, T.R. No.19 of 2015 and the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, at Pakur dated 15.7.2022 in Cr.Appeal No.10 of 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur. 10. This petition, being Cr. Revision No.1414 of 2023 is disposed of. 11. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated : 17th Dec., 2025 SI/