IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Pradhan Oraon, son of Sri Ranjit Oraon, resident of Village Srango, P.O.

& P.S. Ghaghra, District- Gumla … Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Rajio Orain, W/o Pradhan Oraon, D/o Kunwar Oraon, R/o Village

Sarango, P.O. & P.S. Ghaghra, District- Gumla … Opposite Parties

-----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Ms. Mohua Palit, A.P.P.

For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shambhu Nath Tiwari, Advocate

-----

10/16.12.2025 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

Ms. Mohua Palit, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Shambhu

Nath Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 26.11.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.08/2015, whereby, the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal and partly dismissed the appeal by giving benefit of doubt to convict nos.2 and 3, who have been acquitted and so far as this petitioner is concerned, confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2015 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. No.576/2008, corresponding to Ghaghra P.S. Case No.52/2008 (T.R. No.52/2015) by which the learned trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and six months for the offence under Section 498(A)

of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the petitioner is the husband of the informant, who is opposite party no.2. He then submits that the matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute. He next submits that even now both the petitioner and opposite party no.2 have been legally separated and they have re-married to another person. He also submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the petitioner and informant/opposite party no.2 and they have compromised the matter and the joint compromise petition has been filed in the form of I.A. No.15218 of 2025. He next submits that one time alimony of Rs.1,50,000/- has been settled in light of the compromise, which has already been paid by petitioner to the informant/opposite party no.2. He submits that in view of that, the compromise petition may kindly be allowed and the petitioner may kindly be acquitted.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it appears from the said I.A. that the matter has been compromised.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the informant/opposite party no.2 accepts the said submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that now both the petitioner and opposite party no.2 have re-married with another person and the compromise has reached between them. He further submits that in light of the compromise, one time alimony of Rs.1,50,000/- has already been received by the informant/opposite party no.2. He next submits that the said I.A. has been filed on separate affidavit by both the sides. He also submits that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further in the matter. On these grounds, he submits that this matter can be disposed of.

5. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties and considering that the matter is arising under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner is happened to be the husband of the informant and the case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and now both the parties have compromised the matter and even they have re-married to another person and in that view of the matter, the prayer made in the said I.A. is allowed.

6. Taking note of the object of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the expected approach of the High Court in the event of bona fide settlement of disputes had been duly exposited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 wherein the Hon’ble