Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) THE three petitioners, by filing this revision application, has prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.07.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No. 1214 of 2006 arising out of Patratu (Barkakana) P.S. Case No. 101 of 2006 convicting them under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each with fine of Rs. 1000/ - each with default clause and also the judgment of affirmation dated 15.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -III, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 98 of 2014.
(2.) THE details of the fact is not required to be reproduced herein, rather a brief statement of facts would suffice the matter. At the instance of the informant - Salatun Nisha, the aforesaid case was instituted under Sections 498A/494/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet where after charges were framed against the petitioners under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the court after trial convicted the petitioners only under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as indicated above. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction of trial court, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Where after, this revision application has been preferred. During pendency of this revision application, a joint compromise petition has been filed by the petitioners and the informant/opposite party No. 2 - Salatun Nish, the wife of the present petitioner No. 1, with the prayer to allow the parties to compound the case and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court as well as the judgment of the appellate court. An interlocutory application bearing No. 2730 of 2005 was also filed by the petitioners with a prayer to exempt them from surrender in the court below in view of the Rule 159 of Jharkhand High Court Rules. Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying upon the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr. reported in : (2003) 4 SCC 675 submitted that in a similarly situated case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code after compromise the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interests of woman and against the object for which this provision was added. The Hon'ble Court further held that it becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. It was also submitted that though Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not included in the schedule of Section 320 of the Code but in view of the above decision the parties may be allowed to compromise the case and the court in exercise of its inherent powers can acquit the petitioner from the charges and can set aside the conviction and sentences. Hence, the petitioners deserve to be acquitted in the light of the compromise.
(3.) LEARNED counsel representing the State and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 - Salatun Nisha (the informant) fairly submitted that since the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and have filed the affidavit to that extent a lenient view may be taken and the petitioners may be acquitted.;