1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2 OF 2022
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.6840 OF 2021)
RAJENDRA BHAGAT …. APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. ….RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 17.02.2021 as passed by the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 910 of 2019
(with I.A. No. 6052 of 2020), whereby the High Court,
after taking note of the settlement between the parties,
who have resolved their marital discord and are leading a
happy conjugal life, has confirmed the conviction of the
appellant under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (‘IPC’) while reducing the sentence to the period of
imprisonment already undergone by the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
3. The only question requiring determination in the
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2022.01.10
17:42:13 IST
Reason:
present appeal is as to whether the High Court, even after
taking note of the settlement of the parties resolving
2
their marital disputes, has erred in not setting aside the
order of conviction altogether. Having regard to the short
question involved, dilation on all the factual aspects is
not necessary and only a brief reference for the
background would suffice.
4. The appellant joined Indian Army as Naik on
12.09.2005. The appellant and the respondent No. 2 were
married on 25.05.2013. Certain disputes having arisen, the
respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR bearing No. 204 of 2014 at
Police Station, Sisai against the appellant and his family
members with the allegations of demand of dowry, mental
and physical torture etc. On 26.11.2014, the chargesheet
was filed for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 417, 34
IPC against the accused persons and charges were framed
accordingly. After trial in GR Case No. 904 of 2014, the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gumla, convicted
the appellant of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and
the other accused persons of the offence under Section 323
IPC. All the accused persons were acquitted of the charges
under Sections 417, 34 IPC. Except the appellant, all
other accused persons were given the benefit of Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 but, the appellant was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment of three years.
3
5. The appeal preferred by the appellant, being Criminal
Appeal No. 10 of 2019, was dismissed by Sessions Judge,
Gumla on 30.05.2019. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a
revision petition before the High Court, being Criminal
Revision No. 910 of 2019. While the said revision petition
was pending, two significant events took place. The first
had been sanction of competent authority for dismissal of
the appellant from his military service w.e.f. 14.07.2020
for having been convicted of the offence under Section
498-A IPC. In the second relevant event, on 24.11.2020,
the appellant and the respondent No. 2 submitted a joint
application before the High Court, inter alia, stating
that with the intervention and advice of family members,
common relatives and friends, they had entered into
settlement and resolved all their disputes. It was
submitted that upon the appellant approaching his wife for
settlement with assurance to keep her with full honour and
dignity, the proposal was accepted by the wife (respondent
No. 2) with some conditions, while also undertaking to
discharge her matrimonial duties. It was submitted that
the parties were residing together with love and affection
and with no dispute between them. It was, therefore,
jointly prayed that since the dispute was a family dispute
that arose due to miscommunication and misunderstanding,
4
now the revision petition may be disposed of in view 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
on 17.02.2021 and, after taking note of the submissions of
the parties that they had resolved the marital discord and
were residing together while enjoying a happy conjugal
life, indeed observed that continuance of the proceedings
might lead to disharmony but then, merely ordered
modification of sentence to the period of imprisonment
already undergone by the appellant while affirming his
conviction. The High Court observed and directed as under:
“3. Heard. Taking into account that the petitioner-
husband and the wife-opposite party No. 02 have
amicably settled and resolved the material discord and
are residing together and leading a happy conjugal
life, therefore the probability cannot be ruled out
that continuance of the proceeding might lead to
bitterness and disharmony in the conjugal life causing
bickering and acrimony between the husband and the
wife.
Thus, in the interest of justice and for ensuring that
both the parties continue to enjoy a happy conjugal
life, the judgment dated 30/05/2019, passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2019 by the learned Sessions
Judge, Gumla and the judgment dated 31/01/2019, passed
by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Gumla, in G.R. Case No. 904 of 2014 (T.R. No.
185 of 2018) are, hereby, affirmed with modification
of sentence. The petitioner is sentenced to the period
of custody already undergone by him.
5
4. In the result, I.A. No. 6052 of 2020 is, hereby,
disposed off with modification of the sentence as
indicated above accordingly the Criminal Revision is,
hereby, disposed off.”
7. Having examined the matter in its totality, it
appears that the High Court, while disposing of the
revision petition with the application moved by the
parties, did not pause to consider that maintaining of
conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section
498-A IPC would not be securing the ends of justice and
with such conviction being maintained and the appellant
losing his job, the family would again land itself in
financial distress which may ultimately operate adverse to
the harmony and happy conjugal life of the parties. The
learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
respondent No. 2 both have reiterated their stand that
they have resolved their disputes and are living together
while leading a happy conjugal life.
8. Taking note of the object of Section 498-A IPC, the
expected approach of the High Court in the event of bona
fide settlement of disputes had been duly exposited by
this Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others v. State
of Haryana and Another : (2003) 4 SCC 675, where this Court
has underscored the duty of the Court to encourage the
genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes and said as
under: -
6
| “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, | | | | [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are | | | | | | | |
| very apt for determining the approach required to be | | | | | | | | | | | |
| kept in view in a 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 498-A in the Penal | | | |
| Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by her | | | |
| husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A | | | |
| 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 hypertechnical view would be counterproductive 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 XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860. | | | |
| 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. | | | |
7
| 16. | | For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the | |
|---|
| impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the | | | |
| FIR abovementioned.” | | | |
9. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in
the case of Bitan Sengupta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal
& Anr. : (2018) 18 SCC 366.
10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, and taking note
of the terms of settlement as stated in the application
moved before the High Court which include the undertaking
of the appellant that he would be nominating the
respondent No. 2 as the nominee in his service record; and
where the parties are said to be leading a happy conjugal
life, we are clearly of the view that the High Court
should have accepted the settlement and quashed all the
proceedings with annulment of the orders against the
appellant. The High Court having not done so, we are
inclined to adopt this course so as to secure the ends of
justice.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and while
allowing I.A. No. 6052 of 2020 moved before the High Court
in Criminal Revision No. 910 of 2019, all the proceedings
arising out of the said FIR No. 204 of 2014 are quashed
8
qua the appellant. Obviously, the order of conviction of
the appellant is set aside.
.…..…..….….………………..J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI)
.…..…..….….………………..J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 3, 2022.
9
ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-A
(HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6840/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-02-2021
in CRR No.910/2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)
RAJENDRA BHAGAT Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 106046/2021 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 03-01-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Anamika Ghai Niyazi, Adv.
Mr. M. A. Niyazi, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Kishore, Adv.
Ms. Kirti Jaiswal, Adv.
Ms. Nehmat Sethi, Dv.
Ms. Tanshi Arora, Addv.
Mr. Krishan Pal Mavi, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR
Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable
order.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SHRADDHA MISHRA) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed reportable Order is placed on the file)
