Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.136 of 2015 ------------ 1. Tahir Mian, S/o Mokhtar Mian 2. Mokhtar Mian, S/o Hanif Mian 3. Rauf Ansari @ Rauf Mian, S/o Mokhtar Mian 4. Sahina Baz @ Sahina Bano, D/o Mokhtar Mian 5. Saidi Bibi @ Sazda Bibi, W/o Mokhtar Mian All residents of Village- Sohdag Khurd, P.O. + P.S.-Bishrampur District- Palamau (Jharkhand) ... ... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Amna Bibi, D/o Wazir Mian, Resident of Village- Sirma, P.O. + P.S. Patan, District- Palamau (Jharkhand) ... ... ... Opp. Parties ------------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the Petitioners : Mr. Faruque Ansari, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate ------------ C.A.V. ON:- 19.05.2015 PRONOUNCED ON:- 10.09.2015 The question which falls for determination in the instant criminal revision application is whether a matrimonial dispute resulting in conviction of the petitioners at the instance of the informant-wife under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act can be allowed to be compounded under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).
2. The factual aspect of this case in detail is not required to be reproduced, herein, rather brief statement of facts would be sufficient to settle the above question framed in the case. At the instance of informant-Amna Bibi, Bishrampur P.S. Case No.97 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No.1224 of 2005 was instituted under Sections 379, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with the allegation that her marriage with petitioner no.1-Tahir Mian was solemnized on 10.05.2004 as per Muslim rites and after marriage she remained in her matrimonial home for 15 days but thereafter a Splendor motorcycle was demanded by her husband and in-laws. Her father being poor could not provide the same and due to 2 Cr. Revision No.136 of 2015 non-fulfillment of their demand, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. When her father and guardian visited her matrimonial home for her Bidai, she narrated everything to her father. The thumb impression of her father was forcibly taken by in-laws on a paper and only thereafter she was allowed to go with her father. However, they snatched her ear ring and other gold and silver ornaments.
3. It appears from the record that the police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners whereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence in the above Sections. Accordingly, charges were framed. After trial, the court below convicted the petitioners-Tahir Mian, Mokhtar Mian and Rauf Ansari under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5000/- with default clause and simple imprisonment of 15 days respectively. They were also convicted under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.3000/- with default clause. Similarly, petitioner no.4 Sahina Baz @ Sahina Bano and petitioner no.5-Saidi Bibi @ Sazda Bibi were convicted under Section 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each with fine of Rs.3000/- with default clause and simple imprisonment for 15 days respectively and also under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.2000/- with default clause. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal but the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this revision against the concurrent findings of the two courts below.
4. During pendency of this revision, an interlocutory application bearing no.2246 of 2015 was filed stating therein that the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and compromise petition has been filed by way of this interlocutory application with separate affidavit by the parties and they do not want to proceed and 3 Cr. Revision No.136 of 2015 contest this case. Thereafter, all the parties were directed to be physically present in court and on enquiry the informant- Amna Bibi informed the court that she has now no grievance against the petitioners and she has settled her dispute with the petitioners outside the court and good harmony has been restored between them.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the case B.S. Joshi & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC675submitted that in a similarly situated case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of introducing Chapter-XX A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband and it is the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial dispute. It was also submitted that though Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not included in Section 320 of the Code but in view of the ratio decided in the above case, parties may be allowed to compound the offence and accordingly conviction and sentence be set aside.
6. Learned counsels appearing for opposite party no.2- Amna Bibi and for the State fairly submitted that when the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and have filed an affidavit, lenient view may be taken and the petitioners may be acquitted.
7. Section 320 of the Code sets out the details of offences in two different tables, which are compoundable by the parties and those, which are compoundable with leave of the court. It is no doubt that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not included in the above schedule of Section 320 of the Code but in view of the ratio decided in B.S. Joshi & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr. (supra) it becomes the duty of the court to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. In another case, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr..; (2012) 10 SCC303the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavor having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimonial particularly 4 Cr. Revision No.136 of 2015 relating to dowry or the family disputes, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender, if the victim has settled all the disputes with the offender amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 51 Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra) has held as follows:-
“51. Section 320 of the Code articulates public policy with regard to the compounding of offences. It catalogues the offences punishable under IPC which may be compounded by the parties without permission of the court and the composition of certain offences with the permission of the court. The offences punishable under the special statues are not covered by Section 320. When an offence is compoundable under Section 320, abatement of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the accused is liable under Section 34 or 149 IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. A person who is under 18 years of age or is an idiot or a lunatic is not competent to contract compounding of offence but the same can be done on his behalf with the permission of the court. If a person is otherwise competent to compound an offence is dead, his legal representatives may also compound the offence with the permission of the court. Where the accused has been committed for trial or he has been convicted and the appeal is pending, composition can only be done with the leave of the court to which he has been committed or with the leave of the appeal court, as the case may be. The Revisional Court is also competent to allow any person to compound any offence who is competent to compound. The consequence of the composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 mandates that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. Obviously, in view thereof the composition of an offence has to be in accord with Section 320 and in no other manner.”
9. From bare perusal of ratio decided in the above case, it appears that even the revisional court has been held to be competent to allow any person to compound any offence who is competent to compound and the consequence of the composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. In the instant case, the petitioners were 5 Cr. Revision No.136 of 2015 convicted by the two courts and before this revisional court the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and filed the compromise petition with the prayer to allow them to compound the offence. Since a good harmony has been restored between the parties and on enquiry also the opposite party-Amna Bibi, who was the informant clearly stated before the court that as she has settled her dispute with the petitioners and she has now no grievance against them, the petitioners may be acquitted in order to maintain a good relationship between the parties.
10. In view of the discussions made above and considering the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Gian Singh (supra), the conviction and sentence of the petitioners awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court are, hereby, set aside. This revision application is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioners, who are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. (R.N. Verma, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 10th September, 2015 Anit/N.A.F.R.