Quash rejected by HC, even after Husband wife compromise on a 498A case !! Slowly, fire and milk 498a cases are becomming a BAD idea !!

  • In this case, the husband who is convicted of 498a at the lower court, files an appeal at the sessions court and then enters into a compromise with wife.
  • This compromise (with his wife) is rejected by the Sessions court
  • So he files for a quash before the HC.
  • The Hon. Jarkhand HC  also refuses to quash the case, citing a Supreme Court judgement!
  • So, filing false cases and compromising in the name of a compromise seems to be a bad bad idea now !!

    **********************

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

    Cr.M.P. No. 62 of 2015

    1.Shrawan Kumar
    2.Parmanand Pandit
    3.Uma Devi
    4.Manoj Pandit
    5.Sweeti Kumari                                 …     ….Petitioners
    Vs.
    1.The State of Jharkhand
    2.Punam Devi                                     ….Opposite Parties

    CORAM:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR

    ************
    For the Petitioners: Mr.   K.P. Deo Mr.   Vivek Kumar
    For the State: Mr.   Rakesh Kumar, APP
    For the O.P. No. 2: Mr.   Manoj Kumar Sah
    ************

    13.07.2015: This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1, Godda in Cr. Appeal No. 02 of 2013 whereby and whereunder , he rejected the joint compromise petition filed by the parties for disposing of the criminal appeal in pursuance of compromise.

    It appears that the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Godda in P.C.R. No. 840 of 2005 whereby and whereunder he convicted the petitioners under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 3 years and also directed to deposit fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, petitioners have been further directed to undergo a sentence of 6 months S.I.

    It appears that after the conviction, both the parties have settled their dispute out side the court and filed a joint compromise petition in the lower appellate court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1, Godda and the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1, Godda has rejected the aforesaid compromise petition vide order dated 12.11.2014 on the ground that the offence under section 498A of the I.P.C. is not compoundable, therefore, the said compromise petition is not maintainable. Against the aforesaid order, this application filed.

    It is submitted by Sri K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is matrimonial and private in nature, thus, this Court can accept the compromise and quash the conviction pending in the learned lower appellate court, in exercise of power contained under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. In this relation, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon three single Judge judgment of this Court in Heeralal Prasad Verma & Ors V. State of Jharkhand & another reported in 2006CRI. L.J. 778, in Subhash Agarwal @ Subhash Kumar Agarwal & Anr Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in [2012(2)East Cr. C 144(Jhr)] and in Kanti Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in [2012(2)East Cr. C 85(Jhr)].

    On the other hand , Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State submits that once conviction has been made in a non -compoundable case then on the basis of compromise, conviction cannot be quashed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. He relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Manohar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2014 0 CrLJ4326].

    Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly, petitioners convicted under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years, they were also directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, undergo S.I. for 6 months. It is also admitted position that against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appeal is pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Godda vide Cr. Appeal No. 02 of 2013. It is also admitted position that during the pendency of the said appeal, a joint compromise petition filed by both the parties. The said joint petition has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Godda on the ground that the offence under section 498A of the I.P.C. is not compoundable. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

    The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the offence under section 498A of the I.P.C. is matrimonial and private in nature, therefore, in exercise of power contained under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the conviction of the petitioner passed by the court below can be quashed, is on the teeth of recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case ( supra) .

    In the said judgment at paragraph no. 8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

    | “In this case, the appellat is convicted under section 498-A of the
    | IPC and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. He is convicted
    | under Section 4 of the Dowry Act and sentenced to undergo six months
    | imprisonment. Substantive sentences are to run concurrently. Even
    | though wife have arrived at a compromise, the order of conviction
    | cannot be quashed on that ground because the offences involved are
    | non- compoundable… . … ..”

    Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the single judge judgment of this Court as referred herein above have no application because the said judgments had not taken into account the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case.

    Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

    ( Prashant Kumar,J.)

    Sharda/-

    *****************************disclaimer**********************************
    This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
    ******************************************************************
    CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
    ******************************************************************

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s