( 2025:JHHC:37683 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 669 of 2017 1. Pawan Kumar Sahu (Deleted in view of order dated 01.12.2022) 2. Deepak Sahu @ Deepak Prasad, son of Sri Lakhu Sahu 3. Smt. Mani Devi, wife of Sri Lakhu Sahu 4. Lakhu Sahu, son of late Ganesh Sahu All are residents of village-Saldega, Tongritoli, P.O. and P.S. Simdega, District-Simdega (Jharkhand) … Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Pinki Devi, wife of Shri Pawan Kumar Sahu, resident of village Simdega Church Road, Ghochotoli, P.O. and P.S. Simdega , District-Simdega …..Opposite Parties With Cr. Revision No. 764 of 2017 Anand Sahu @ Anand Prasad, son of Sri Lakhu Sahu, resident of village- Saldega, Tongritoli, P..O. and P.S. Simdega, District-Simdega (Jharkhand) ...... … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Pinki Devi, wife of Shri Pawan Kumar Sahu, resident of village Simdega Church Road, Ghochotoli, P.O. and P.S. Simdega District-Simdega … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Ramchandar Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl. P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Chandan Kr. Bhagat, Advocate 22/ 16.12.2025: Since both the criminal revision petitions are arising out of same Complaint Case and same judgement, hence both the criminal revision petitions are heard together with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Criminal Revision No. 669 of 2017 is already abated as petitioner no.1-namely, Pawan Kumar Sahu who is husband of O.P. No.2 has left for his heavenly abode and his name has already been deleted in the light of order dated 01.12.2022 from the array of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that rest of the petitioners in both the revision applications are inlaws of the informant. He next ( 2025:JHHC:37683 ) 2 submits that both the revision petitions have been preferred for setting aside judgment dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2014 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.07.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in Complaint Case No. 71/2011 (T.R. No. 82/2014) whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the charges under sections 323, 498A of I.P.C. and under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1861 and further they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the charge under section 498A of I.P.C. and R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the charge under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and no separate sentence was passed for the charge under section 323 of the I.P.C. holding that the petitioners have been sentenced for the charge under section 498-A of I.P.C committing physical torture subjected to cruelty on the complainant, in default of payment of fine, the petitioners were directed to further undergo S.I for three months and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the matter has been sent for settlement before the Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi and both the sides appeared and the matter has been settled. He further submits that the matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute and husband of the complainant has already left for his heavenly abode. He further submits that in terms of settlement it was agreed that a land measuring 1.25 decimals be purchased in the name of the son of the O.P. No.2 and one two storeyed building be constructed by the petitioners in main Simdega town with all the amenities (water and electricity connection) as promised in the settlement paper by the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the O.P. No.2 complainant will not make any further claim over the share part of the house situated in Simdega ( 2025:JHHC:37683 ) 3 that belonged to petitioner no.1-husband of the O.P. No.2. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that efforts have been taken and the said purchase has been done in Simdega town and house has already been constructed however, sale deed has to be executed in favour of the son and in this regard O.P. No.2 along with her son may appear on any date thereafter sale deed will be executed in favour of son and in that view of the matter, both these criminal revision applications may kindly be disposed of. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the matter was sent for mediation by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court before the Member Secretary, JHALSA and the matter has been settled and mediation report of JHALSA is already on record and in view of the matter these revision petitions can be disposed of. 8. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the matter has been settled between the parties however sale deed has not been executed as yet and in view of that petitioner no.4-Lakhu Sahu may kindly directed to execute the sale deed in favour of son of O.P. No.2. He further submits that in both the petitions separate joint compromise petitions have been filed by way of I.A. Nos.118/2024 and 4382/2024 on separate affidavit of both sides and in view of that these revision applications may kindly be disposed of with direction to the petitioner no.4-Lakhu Sahu to execute sale deed in favour of son of O.P. No.2 in terms of settlement on any date fixed by this Court. 9. In course of argument, photographs of constructed house has been produced which is taken on record. The case is arising out of matrimonial dispute. The petitioners are inlaws of the O.P. No.2. The husband of the complainant has already left for his heavenly abode. The matter was sent for mediation before the JHALSA, where both the sides have appeared and the matter has been settled and the mediation report is on record and in view of ( 2025:JHHC:37683 ) 4 that joint compromise petitions have been filed in both the petitions by way of I.As. on separate affidavit of both sides. 10. Taking note of object of section 498A of I.P.C, the Court is expected having the approach in the event of bonafide settlement of dispute as held in the case of “ B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana” reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 wherein paragraphs 12 to 16 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 & Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] 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 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 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A 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 counter productive 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. 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 above mentioned.” ( 2025:JHHC:37683 ) 5 11. The same view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Bitan Sengupta vs The State Of West Bengal “ reported in (2018) 18 SCC 366. 12. In view of above discussions and considering that the matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute, settlement is already made as such petitioner no.4-Lakhu Sahu will execute the sale deed in favour of son of the O.P. No.2 in the month of January, 2026 and learned counsel for the parties are giving their consent as 19.01.2026. The O.P. No.2 along with her son will appear before the District Sub-Registrar, Simdega and on that date father-in-law who is petitioner no.4-Lakhu Sahu (in Cr. Revision No. 669/2017) shall execute the sale deed in favour of the son of the O.P. No.2. 13. In the aforesaid view taken note of in the joint compromise as stated in the applications filed in the form of interlocutory applications which include undertaking of the petitioner no.4-Lakhu Sahu to execute the sale deed in favour of the son of O.P. No.2, settlement is hereby accepted and further considering the aforesaid judgments and also the judgments in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, and in the case of “ Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the judgment dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2014 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.07.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in Complaint Case No. 71/2011 (T.R. No. 82/2014), are set aside. 14. Both the criminal revision petitions are allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated. 16.12.2025 Satyarthi-