HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 1518 of 1999
Revisionist :- Ajai Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravindra Nath Rai,Ashok Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Rai learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The revisionist herein has been convicted of an offence under Section 406 IPC and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default, 15 days simple imprisonment in addition to the above period has been ordered.
The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the dispute between husband and wife had been settled over the period of time and now they have got divorce on compromise. All the disputes relating to payment of permanent alimony/maintenance has been settled. Even at the relevant point of time, two cases were filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and 498-A SectionI.P.C. and a divorce petition was later filed by the revisionist herein.
The copy of the divorce decree dated 11.2.2002 which was passed in terms of the compromise arrived between the parties, is on record of the affidavit filed on 13.9.2019.
Having perused the record and the fact that prior to the complaint under Sections 406, Section504, Section506 I.P.C., there were other disputes going on between the parties, the assertion of learned counsel for the revisionist that the conviction of the revisionist was based on conjunctures and surmises, is found convincing and substantiated from the record.
A perusal of the judgment and order dated 20.2.1998 indicates that no effort had been made by the court below to bring the parties to a compromise, when the dispute was matrimonial in nature. The allegations that the petitioner-husband had illegally kept ‘Ishtridhan’ of the wife in the complaint is not substantiated from any material on record. The judgment proceeds on hypothesis that as the wife’s father owned 20-22 Bigha lands, he was capable to give so much of gold and other household items to his daughter.
Moreover, in view of the subsequent developments brought on record, for the fact that a compromise had been arrived between the complainant and the revisionist (herein) in the proceedings under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and 125 SectionCr.P.C. and divorce suit had been decreed on the said compromise, this Court does not find any justification to sustain the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner.
The judgment and order dated 20.2.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in Case Crime No. 784 of 1995 under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Dhaulana,(Ghaziabad) and the judgment and order dated 31.7.1999 passed by the XVth Additional Session Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1998 (SectionAjai Kumar vs. State of U.P.) are found to suffer from material illegality. While quashing the aforesaid decisions, the criminal revision is allowed.
The revisionist is acquitted of the charges under Section under Section 406 IPC. The bail bonds furnished by the revisionist are discharged. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the revisionist.
Certify the judgment to the court below immediately.
Order Date :- 2.12.2019