2026:JHHC:16589 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1562 of 2016 -------- Som Nath Banerjee, S/o. Late Rabindra Nath Banerjee, R/o. Ajanta Para, Hirapur, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pratima Banerjee, W/o. Som Nath Banerjee, C/o. Asit Kumar Das, R/o. “Muktagan”, near Govt. Middle School, Baramasia, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad. …… Opp. Parties -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Asit Baran Mahata, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate JUDGMENT C.A.V. On: 21/04/2026 Pronounced On: 09/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 43 of 2014 / 1254 of 2014 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1440 of 2010 directing the petitioner to undergo R.I. for 2 years alongwith the fine 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1562 of 2016) of Rs. 4,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. has been upheld. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant Pratima Banerjee (O.P. No. 2) was married with present petitioner Som Nath Banerjee on 04.03.2009 in accordance with Hindu rights and custom. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, Rs. 80,000/- cash, ornaments and furniture were demanded but the guardian of the complainant could arrange only Rs. 20,000/- cash which was paid at the time of marriage apart from ornaments and furniture. When the complainant went to her matrimonial home, her husband and his relatives started raising demand of remaining amount of Rs. 60,000/- on the occasion of Bahu Bhat. The complainant was ill-treated and tortured in various ways and her proper food and comfort was also declined and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for bringing Rs. 60,000/- cash from her relatives. It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant used to consume liquor and commit indecent behavior with her in the night and also passed vulgar remarks against her, in presence of her Dewar Shiv Nath Banerjee. The cruelty and torture meted with the complainant continued till 14.06.2009 and ultimately complainant was pushed out from her house by her Dewar Shiv Nath Banerjee and she was ousted from her matrimonial home keeping her all jewelries and ornaments. The complainant was compelled to stay with her sister and Jija. The complainant’s husband on false ground with a view to save his own skin instituted Title (M) Suit No. 365 of 2009 before the court of the 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1562 of 2016) learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. At the time of marriage, the complainant was working as a teacher in a private school, but after marriage on the desire of husband, she discontinued the job of teaching. The complainant has also filed maintenance case being M.P. Case No. 367 of 2009 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against her husband before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad. It is further alleged that on 08.08.2010 at about 10:00 A.M., complainant’s husband and Dewar came to the house of her sister and misbehaved with her by abusing and assaulting and insisted upon their demand of Rs. 60,000/- which was refused by the complainant and her guardians, hence, finding no way, she filed a complaint case for the offence under Sections 498A, 323 & 504/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 1440 of 2010. 4. After conducting inquiry into the complaint petition, the learned Trial Court found prima facie case for the offence under Section 498A/34 of the I.P.C. and summons were issued to the petitioner and co-accused. 5. The accused persons appeared on summons but did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether, 03 witnesses were examined by the complainant:- I. C.W.-1 Pratima Banerjee (Complainant) II. C.W.-2 Lili Das III. C.W.-3 Ashit Kumar Das 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1562 of 2016) 7. The defence has also examined one witness, namely, D.W.-1 Nitai Nag and also relied upon following documentary evidence:- I. Exhibit-A: C/C of order-sheet of Title (M) Suit No. 365/2009 II. Exhibit-B: C/C of M.P. Case No. 307/2009 III. Exhibit-C: C/C of Order-sheet of C.P. Case No. 2089/2009. 8. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded to be innocent and false implication. 9. The learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court after scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary evidence relied upon by the complainant as well as defence, arrived at conclusion that the complainant has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt against her husband. The complainant has categorically proved the cruel treatment at the hands of her husband on account of non-fulfillment illegal demand of dowry, she has been subjected to mental and physical cruelty. She also lodged the maintenance case and as pressure tactics, the case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the petitioner without any reasonable cause. The conduct of husband with his wife (complainant) has compelled her to reside separately from her husband instead of joining the nuptial relationship. 10. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, Criminal Appeal No. 43/2014 / 1254/2014 was preferred by the petitioner Som Nath Banerjee and the same was heard and decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge- VIII, Dhanbad, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1562 of 2016) passed against the accused was upheld, which has been assailed in this revision application. Submission on behalf of the Petitiioner:- 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment and order has submitted that after one and half year of the alleged occurrence, this case was lodged, when the petitioner has already instituted a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The complainant was not desiring to live at her matrimonial home and was showing reluctance in living at her sasural due to giving up job as teacher after the marriage. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider the defence evidence adduced by the petitioner and mainly concentrated with the evidence of the complaint taking a sympathetically view, hence arrived at wrong conclusion. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. This revision is fit to be allowed. Submission on behalf of the Opp. Parties:- 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 assisted by the learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that in a very short span of marriage, the complainant was forced to fulfill demand of Rs. 60,000/- which was due at the time of marriage. The complainant has proved her physical and mental torture at the hands of her husband and her agony sustained due to misconduct of the petitioner. It is further submitted that Exhibit-A, B & C are the litigations filed by the petitioner which were never seriously contested and used as a pressure tactics without any sincere effort to reconcile the matter and restore 6 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1562 of 2016) the conjugal relationship. It is further submitted that in spite of the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad for granting maintenance allowance in favour of the complainant, the accused (petitioner) did not comply with the aforesaid order and not paying the maintenance allowance. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court calling for any interference in this revision, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 13. I have gone through the record of the case alongwith the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. 14. It appears that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has very wisely and aptly considered the overall aspects of the case. The evidence of the complainant appears to be unimpeachable and unrebutted leveling cruel treatment against her husband due to non-fulfillment of arrear of dowry demand Rs. 60,000/-. The defence has not been able to rebut the prosecution evidence rather relied upon institution of case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, without showing any sincere effort to reconcile the matter and matrimonial dispute. 15. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the concurred findings of the learned Trial court and the learned Appellate Court regarding 7 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1562 of 2016) prove of guilt of petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. There is no valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 16. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. 17. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 18. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. 19. Let the trial court records also be sent back to the concerned Trial Court. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:09/06/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 10/06/2026