RAJENDRA BHAGAT versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. on 3 January 2022

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order datedC17.02.2021 as passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi inCriminal Revision No. 910 of 2019 (with I.A. No. 6052 of 2020), wherebythe High Court, after taking note of the settlement between the parties,who have resolved their marital discord and are leading a happy conjugallife, has confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-Aof the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) while reducing the sentence toDthe period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant.

3. The only question requiring determination in the present appealis as to whether the High Court, even after taking note of the settlementof the parties resolving their marital disputes, has erred in not settingaside the order of conviction altogether. Having regard to the short questionEinvolved, dilation on all the factual aspects is not necessary and only abrief reference for the background would suffice.

4. The appellant joined Indian Army as Naik on 12.09.2005. Theappellant and the respondent No. 2 were married on 25.05.2013. Certaindisputes having arisen, the respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR bearing No.F204 of 2014 at Police Station, Sisai against the appellant and his familymembers with the allegations of demand of dowry, mental and physicaltorture etc. On 26.11.2014, the chargesheet was filed for offences underSections 498-A, 323, 417, 34 IPC against the accused persons andcharges were framed accordingly. After trial in GR Case No. 904 of2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gumla, convicted theGappellant of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the other accusedpersons of the offence under Section 323 IPC. All the accused personswere acquitted of the charges under Sections 417, 34 IPC. Except theappellant, all other accused persons were given the benefit of Probationof Offenders Act, 1958 but, the appellant was sentenced to undergoHsimple imprisonment of three years.

5. The appeal preferred by the appellant, being Criminal AppealNo. 10 of 2019, was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Gumla on 30.05.2019.Thereafter, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the HighCourt, being Criminal Revision No. 910 of 2019. While the said revisionpetition was pending, two significant events took place. The first hadbeen sanction of competent authority for dismissal of the appellant fromhis military service w.e.f. 14.07.2020 for having been convicted of theoffence under Section 498-A IPC. In the second relevant event, on24.11.2020, the appellant and the respondent No. 2 submitted a jointapplication before the High Court, inter alia, stating that with theintervention and advice of family members, common relatives and friends,they had entered into settlement and resolved all their disputes. It wassubmitted that upon the appellant approaching his wife for settlementwith assurance to keep her with full honour and dignity, the proposalwas accepted by the wife (respondent No. 2) with some conditions,while also undertaking to discharge her matrimonial duties. It wassubmitted that the parties were residing together with love and affectionand with no dispute between them. It was, therefore, jointly prayed thatsince the dispute was a family dispute that arose due to miscommunicationand misunderstanding, now the revision petition may be disposed of inview of the changed circumstances and the family status of the parties.This application was registered as I.A. No. 6052 of 2020.

6. The High Court took up the matter for consideration on17.02.2021 and, after taking note of the submissions of the parties thatthey had resolved the marital discord and were residing together whileenjoying a happy conjugal life, indeed observed that continuance of theproceedings might lead to disharmony but then, merely orderedmodification of sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergoneby the appellant while affirming his conviction. The High Court observedand directed as under:

“3. Heard. Taking into account that the petitioner- husband andthe wife-opposite party No. 02 have amicably settled and resolvedthe material discord and are residing together and leading a happyconjugal life, therefore the probability cannot be ruled out thatcontinuance of the proceeding might lead to bitterness anddisharmony in the conjugal life causing bickering and acrimonybetween the husband and the wife.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThus, in the interest of justice and for ensuring that both the partiescontinue to enjoy a happy conjugal life, the judgment dated 30/05/2019, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2019 by the learnedSessions Judge, Gumla and the judgment dated 31/01/2019, passedby the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gumla, inG.R. Case No. 904 of 2014 (T.R. No. 185 of 2018) are, hereby,Baffirmed with modification of sentence. The petitioner is sentencedto the period of custody already undergone by him.

A

4. In the result, I.A. No. 6052 of 2020 is, hereby, disposed offwith modification of the sentence as indicated above accordinglythe Criminal Revision is, hereby, disposed off.”

C

7. Having examined the matter in its totality, it appears that theHigh Court, while disposing of the revision petition with the applicationmoved by the parties, did not pause to consider that maintaining ofconviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 498-A IPC wouldnot be securing the ends of justice and with such conviction beingDmaintained and the appellant losing his job, the family would again landitself in financial distress which may ultimately operate adverse to theharmony and happy conjugal life of the parties. The learned counselappearing for the appellant and the respondent No. 2 both have reiteratedtheir stand that they have resolved their disputes and are living togetherEwhile leading a happy conjugal life.

8. Taking note of the object of Section 498-A IPC, the expectedapproach of the High Court in the event of bona fide settlement ofdisputes had been duly exposited by this Court in the case of B.S. Joshiand Others v. State of Haryana and Another: (2003) 4 SCC 675,Fwhere this Court has underscored the duty of the Court to encouragethe genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes and said as under: - “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident.It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlementsof matrimonial disputes.

G

G13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightlydifferent context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, [(2000) 3 SCC693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for determining theapproach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute bythe courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonialdisputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the mainH

purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down inlife and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenlyerupt which often assume serious proportions resulting incommission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family arealso involved with the result that those who could have counselledand brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on theirbeing arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are manyother reasons which need not be mentioned here for notencouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponderover their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutualagreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where ittakes years and years to conclude and in that process the partieslose 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 preventtorture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband andhis relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or herrelatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnicalview would be counterproductive and would act against interestsof women and against the object for which this provision wasadded. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherentpower to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice wouldprevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object ofChapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860.

15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Courtin exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedingsor FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit oraffect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

16. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgmentand allow the appeal and quash the FIR abovementioned.”

9. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in the case ofBitan Sengupta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. : (2018) 18SCC 366.

10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, and taking note of theterms of settlement as stated in the application moved before the HighCourt which include the undertaking of the appellant that he would be ABC

D

E

F

G

H

Anominating the respondent No. 2 as the nominee in his service record;and where the parties are said to be leading a happy conjugal life, weare clearly of the view that the High Court should have accepted thesettlement and quashed all the proceedings with annulment of the ordersagainst the appellant. The High Court having not done so, we are inclinedto adopt this course so as to secure the ends of justice.B

11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and while allowing I.A.No. 6052 of 2020 moved before the High Court in Criminal RevisionNo. 910 of 2019, all the proceedings arising out of the said FIR No. 204of 2014 are quashed qua the appellant. Obviously, the order of convictionof the appellant is set aside.

C

Nidhi Jain

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H