JUDGMENT :

Through Video Conferencing

1. Heard Mr. Srijit Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.

3. Heard Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

4. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 14.07.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in G.R. Case No. 1383 of 2008 / T.R. No. 1921/2011 (arising out of Kadma P.S. Case No. 86/2008) and dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner.

5. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 Years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the present criminal revision application, both the parties entered into compromise and finally, they decided to separate through mutual consent and accordingly, a joint compromise petition being I.A. No. 1067 of 2021 has been filed before this Court in which the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties for the purposes of divorce has been brought on record. The terms and conditions of the settlement are recorded as under :

“(i) That Opposite Party No. 2 shall withdraw her complaint / allegations as against the petitioner based on which the present Criminal Revision has arisen as soon as the decree for Divorce by mutual consent is granted by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit i.e. Original Suit No. 895/2019.

(ii) That both the parties shall be free to lead their respective lives in their own way and the parties shall not interfere in each other’s matter.

(iii) That none of the parties shall raise any other dispute against each other arising from the same cause of action.

7. It has also been stated at para 8 of the joint compromise petition that this joint compromise petition may be accepted and the instant Criminal Revision may be allowed and the petitioner may be acquitted from all the charges.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence may be set aside as the parties have already settled down the matter and have already separated.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 supported the fact that the petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2 have settled their disputes and have entered into compromise under the terms and conditions mentioned in I.A. No. 1067/2021 and the Opposite Party No.2 has no objection to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. She also submits that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence may be set aside as the parties have already settled down the matter and have already separated.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

10. Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable in nature and in such circumstances, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 75 is a binding precedent wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that once conviction is recorded under the non-compoundable offences, the order of sentence cannot be quashed, b