-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 689 of 2010 …. Binod @ Vinod Kumar Sah, S/O late Gurudeo Sah, resident of Villag-Bishanpur, P.O. Rampur, P.S.-Kahalgoan, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar ……Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Usha Sah, W/o Binod Kr. Sah, presently reside at Village-Bihario P.S. Thakur Gaugh Dist. Godda ……Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Md. Azimuddin, A.P.P For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate …… 27/05.03.2025 The present Criminal Revision No. 689 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 13.04.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2008 by Sri Anil Kumar Choudhary, then learned Sessions Judge, Godda (as then His Lordship was) whereby then learned Sessions Judge, Godda has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.06.2008 passed by Sri Rajendra Bahadur Pal, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 32 of 1998 corresponding to T. R. No. 23 of 2008 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one (1) year. 2. I. A. No. 8934 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 by way of joint compromise petition on 22.08.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner has also -2- deposited a Demand Draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. 5.00/- Lakh) in the joint name of the opposite party no. 2, Usha Sah and her daughter namely Bulbul Kumari in the office of the learned Registrar General of High Court of Jharkhand and the opposite party no. 2 has also received the Demand Draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. 5.00/- Lakh) from the office of the learned Registrar General in presence of her counsel. It is submitted that both the parties do not want to proceed the case further and as such, the impugned judgments and order of sentence may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed and the petitioner may be acquitted. 4. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also admitted the factum of compromise between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has no grievance against the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 has received the Demand Draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. 5.00/- Lakh) from the office of the learned Register General, which may be utilized at the time of marriage of her daughter Bulbul Kumari and hence appropriate order may be passed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of this case and I. A. No. 8934 of 2024, it appears that it is a case of matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. 7. It appears that pursuant to the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava) of this Court, the parties had agreed to settle the dispute outside the Court on certain terms and conditions. Thereafter on 22.01.2025 passed by this Court, this Court had directed the petitioner to file a Demand Draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- -3- (Rs. 5.00/- Lakh) in the joint name of the opposite party no. 2, Usha Sah and her daughter namely Bulbul Kumari in the office of the learned Registrar General. 8. It also appears that the petitioner has already been granted bail on 03.08.2010 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Jaya Roy as then Her Ladyship was) of this Court. 9. On filing joint compromise petition by both the sides. Thereafter the petitioner had deposited Demand Draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. 5.00/- Lakh) dated 24.02.2025 in the joint name of the opposite party no. 2, Usha Sah and her daughter namely Bulbul Kumari in the office of the learned Registrar General and which was received by the opposite party no. 2 from the office of the learned Registrar General on 28.02.2025. 10. Para- 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the I. A. No. 8934 of 2024, filed on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, read as follows:- “ Para-1:- That the instant interlocutory application is being filed on behalf of the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 for grant of permission of compromise petition. Para-4:-That it is stated and submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid Criminal Revision No. 689 of 2010, the parties have amicably settled the present dispute on the interventions of the well-wisher and good wishes outside of the Hon’ble Court and now the opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed the matter. Para-5:- That it is stated and submitted that the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 have an unmarried daughter aged about 27 years old namely Bulbul Kumari and petitioner is agree to pay of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs). -4- Para-6:- That it is stated and submitted that the petitioner is ready to give a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) in the name of opposite party no. 2 for the purpose of marriage of her daughter. Para-7:- That it is stated and submitted that so in view of the facts as stated above that now the opposite party no. 2 has no grievance against petitioner from this Criminal Revision No. 689 of 2010. Para-8:- That it is stated and submitted that under the facts and circumstances as stated above this Hon’ble Court may grant permission to accept the compromise petition between petitioner and opposite party no. 2 and this Hon’ble Court may allow the aforesaid Criminal Revision No. 689 of 2010.” 11. It is well settled in the Catena of Decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matrimonial dispute should be allowed to be settled. 12. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Others and State of Haryana and Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 of para-13 and 14 as follows:- “Para-13:- The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad 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 -5- 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. Para-14:- There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the 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 hyper- technical 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 XXA of Indian Penal Code.” 13. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in the case of Jai Prakash Chaurasia Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (1994) 2 BLJR 825 at para-4 and 5 as follows:- “Para-4:- In this case, the petitioner is also prosecuted under Section 494 of the I.P.C. as per Section 198 of the Cr. P. C. I find that the prosecution under Section 494 of the IPC can only be initiated on the complaint made by the aggrieved party. Here, the complainant has come forward in this application before this Court showing her willingness not to proceed with the matter. I find that the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 and 494 of the IPC are not compoundable. Para- 5 Counsel for the parties have placed reliance in Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111. In Mahesh Chand (supra) I find that the offence was under Section 307 of the I. P. C. and since the parties had come to an agreement and good sense had prevailed upon them, the Supreme Court directed the Court below to permit the parties to compound the offence.” 14. It has been held in the case of Bitan Sengupta and Another Versus State of West Bengal and Another reported in (2018) 18 -6- SCC 366 at Para 6 and 7 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”. 15. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 -7- by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In 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 tranquillity 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 -8- 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 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. -9- 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 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, 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.” 16. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble -10- Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Bhagat versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2022) 18 SCC 465 at Para 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 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-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. Para-9:- 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 disputes and said as under: (SCC pp.682-83, para 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, [(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 -11- 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.” Para-10:- The same view has been reiterated by this Court in the case of 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 -12- would be nominating the respondent No. 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 I.A. 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.” 17. It appears that the case has been settled between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. 18. Under the circumstances, the judgment dated 13.04.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2008 by Sri Anil Kumar Choudhary, the learned Sessions Judge, Godda and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.06.2008 passed by Sri Rajendra Bahadur Pal, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 32 of 1998 corresponding to T. R. No. 23 of 2008 are set aside and the petitioner- Binod @ Vinod Kumar Sah is acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner- Binod @ Vinod Kumar Sah is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 19. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No. 689 of 2010 is allowed to the extent indicated above in terms of compromise. 20. I. A. No. 8934 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/