Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.N.Sinha, J.
Ravi Kumar
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 229 of 2007 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 7, 2008
Compoundable Offences - Matrimonial Dispute - The court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the lower court to reconsider the allegation in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. v/s. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 4 SCC 675. The court also ordered the return of the amount already paid to the wife with interest, and allowed the parties to settle the matrimonial dispute outside the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-husband filed a writ application challenging the lower court's order that allowed the petition of the opposite party-wife, asserting that the offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the lower court to reconsider the allegation in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The court also ordered the return of the amount already paid to the wife with interest and allowed the parties to settle the entire matrimonial dispute outside the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are compoundable, and whether the lower court considered the claim of the parties in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the claim of the parties in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. v/s. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 4 SCC 675, and held that the lower court did not consider the aspects considered in the said case when it passed the impugned order.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the lower court to reconsider the allegation in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The court also ordered the return of the amount already paid to the wife with interest and allowed the parties to settle the entire matrimonial dispute outside the court.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner-husband has filed this writ application assailing the order dates 12.1.2007, passed in Complaint Case No. 1622(C) of 2003, whereunder the SDJM Patna has allowed the petition of the opposite party-wife observing that the offences u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable. Prior to the recording of the said impugned order, parties had filed petition dated 17.7.2004, Annexure-2, whereunder they had agreed to settle the allegation set out in the complaint case as also in the Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 205 of 2004 on payment of Rs. Eight lacs by the petitioner to the opposite party-wife, which payment, according to the counsel for the petitioner has already been made, whereafter opposite party-wife filed the petition, which has been considered and allowed under order dated 12.1.2007 asserting that the earlier petition, Annexure-2 was filed under some misconception and she is not inclined to settle the allegation set out in the complaint case. The court below has disposed of the petition holding that offences u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that offence u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act may not be compoundable in terms of the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the offence being against the individual affecting the family and the society, matter is required to be considered in a different perspective as has been done by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 4 SCC 675, whereunder their Lordships having considered the claim of the parties, permitted the offence u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to be compounded for giving decent quietus to the matrimonial dispute between them so that better social relationship and peace prevails in the two family. The aspects con-sidered in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. (supra) does not appear to have been considered by the court below when it passed impugned order dated 12.1.2007.
4. In the circumstances, impugned order dated 12.1.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court of SDJM, Patna to reconsider the allegation set out in the complaint case in the light of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others (supra), but before such reconsideration is made, the entire amount of Rs. Eight lacs already paid to the wife opposite party or kept in deposit in the Nazarat be returned to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 10% from the date of payment or deposit within a time specified by the court below for which repayment even counsel for the opposite party-wife has no objection. Even at this belated stage, parties are at liberty to settle the entire matrimonial dispute outside the court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
