Jharkhand High Court
Sahlat Fahad @ Sohlat Fahad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 1300
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 113 of 2013
Sahlat Fahad @ Sohlat Fahad, son of Late Jiaul Rahaman, resident of
Naya Nagar, Barkakana, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sagufta Parveen, wife of Sahlat Fahad, resident of Gauri
Shankar Lane, Jugsalai, P.O. and P.S.-Jugsalai, East Singhbhum
... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
25/C.A.V. on 04.12.2020 Pronounced on 14.12.2020
1. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
3. Heard Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
4. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 19.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 2010 whereby the learned appellate court confirmed the Judgment of conviction and maintained the order of sentence of the petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal.
5. The criminal appeal was preferred against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 19.04.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 451 of 2007 / T.R. No. 135 of 2010 whereby the petitioner was convicted 2 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the informant / Opposite Party No. 2 and he has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that before the date of filing the F.I.R. on 01.03.2007 by the informant, divorce had already taken place between the petitioner and the informant by way of Triple Talak as back as on 06.12.2006 and thereafter, the petitioner had filed Matrimonial Case No. 21 of 2007 on 17.02.2007 for confirmation of the divorce which was ultimately decreed in favour of the petitioner on 18th June, 2014 on contest. Learned counsel submitted that the condition precedent for filing a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is relationship of wife and husband between the informant and the so-called husband, but in this case, no such relationship was subsisting between the informant and the petitioner on the date of filing the case by the informant. He further submitted that no case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code could have been filed against the petitioner as the same was filed after the divorce. Learned counsel also submitted that the present case was filed by the informant by way of retaliation only which amounts to abuse of the process of law. He further submitted that this plea regarding the date of divorce on 06.12.2006 was taken up before the learned courts below, but the learned courts below rejected the same.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the I.O. has been examined as P.W.-9, but he never visited the place of occurrence at Barkakana and therefore, the place of 3 occurrence has not been proved. He further submitted that entire conviction of the petitioner is based on the evidence of P.W.-2 who is the informant of the case and she had alleged that the petitioner had tried to burn him by sprinkling oil, but this aspect of the matter has not been proved. He also submitted that the rest of the witnesses are practically hearsay witnesses and no witness of the locality has been examined in the case. He further submitted that no injury as such has been proved inasmuch as there is no injury report and no quantification of the demand of dowry in terms of material or money has been made in the case. He submitted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is entitled for benefit of doubt.
8. In course of hearing through video conferencing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed the judgment dated 18th June, 2014 delivered by the learned Family Court, Hazaribagh in Matrimonial Case No. 21 of 2007 and conceded that different dates are mentioned in the evidence regarding the date of divorce which must be an error of record. He further submitted that as per his knowledge, the said judgment passed by the learned Family Court has not been challenged before any higher court of law.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon various judgments passed by the various courts which are as under:
Mohammad Miyan -Vs- The State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 13 SCC 398 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Arjun Ram -Vs- State of Jharkhand 2004 CriLJ 2989 passed by this Court Pradeep Kumar Bhandari & Anr -Vs- State of Jharkhand & Anr, Cr.M.P. No.215 of 2005, decided on 05.08.2009 by this Court Shanmughavelu -Vs- State by Inspector of Police [2004 CriLJ 2731] passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court Sri Ashfaq Ali -Vs- Smt. Janeez Fatima, Criminal Petition No. 7232/2016, decided on 29.08.2019 by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court 4 Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Parties
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, on the other hand, submitted that the judgment of the learned Family Court, Hazaribag, which has been placed on behalf of the petitioner through e-mail, has come to his knowledge for the first time as he is not aware that the same was challenged or not. However, he submitted that the same cannot be taken into consideration as the plea regarding the divorce was duly considered by the learned courts below. He further submitted that otherwise also there is also inconsistency in the date of the triple talak in the judgment passed by the learned Family Court, Hazaribag i.e. whether it was on 06.12.2006 or 06.12.2007 while recording the evidence in the judgement. Learned counsel further submitted that irrespective of the plea of divorce, the period of occurrence is right from the year 1999 i.e. after marriage, till the year 2006 and accordingly, at the time of occurrence, status of the petitioner and the informant was that of husband and wife. He submitted that the occurrence is related to the period between 1999 and 2006 and even if there is subsequent divorce, the same does not absolve the petitioner of his criminal liability.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that there is limited scope of interference of this Court in revisional jurisdiction. He referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case State represented by the Drug Inspector -Vs- Manimaran (2019) 13 SCC 670, Para-16 and submitted that the petitioner has not shown any material which has not been considered by the learned courts below to show that the impugned judgments are perverse. He also referred to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and submitted that the basic ingredients of the offence have been satisfied against the petitioner. He also referred to the various exhibits and submitted that there has been compromise between the parties which indicates that there was matrimonial dispute at various 5 times and it was compromised.
12. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State submitted that there has been continuous torture of the informant since the date of her marriage in the year 1999. She further submitted that the informant was thoroughly cross- examined, but nothing could be elicited to shake her credibility and her evidence has also been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses. She also referred to Para-19 of the appellate court judgment and submitted that although other witnesses are said to be hearsay, but they have seen the injury on the person of the informant-victim-Opposite Party No.2. She also supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and submitted that there is no scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Findings of this Court
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments as well as the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the written report filed by the informant on 01.03.2007 alleging inter-alia that her marriage was solemnised with the petitioner and after the marriage, the petitioner and her in-laws started demanding additional dowry and threatened that if the demand is not fulfilled, she will be divorced and the petitioner will solemnise second marriage. It was further alleged that the petitioner assaulted her by iron rod, lathi and dish wire and also tried to kill her several times by opening the knob of the gas cylinder and by pouring kerosene oil upon her and her in-laws instigated the petitioner to do so and proper food was not provided to her. Her parents tried to compromise the matter, but the accused persons were not ready. She has three children, but they were also not given proper food by the accused persons. Ultimately, she was forced to leave her matrimonial house. Thereafter, the 6 petitioner and other accused persons came to her parental house and demanded money there also. Thereafter, she instituted the present case.
14. On the basis of the written report, the case was registered under Sections 498A, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498A, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner and other accused persons under the same sections.
15. The charges under Sections 498A, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the petitioner and Ebadul Rahman, Tahira Khatoon, Lamat Alia, Aftab Alam and Mupejul Haq which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
16. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 09 witnesses in support of its case. P.W.-1 is Rabi Rajak, P.W.-2 is Sagufta Parveen who is the Informant of the case, P.W.-3 is Md. Safiq, P.W.-4 is Asgar Ali, P.W.-5 is Zubeda Khatoon, P.W.-6 is Rabia Khatoon who is the mother of the Informant, P.W.-7 is Wakil Anwar who is brother of the Informant, P.W.-8 is Sakeel Anwar who is another brother of the Informant and P.W.-9 is Md. Salaudin Khan who is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W.1, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are independent witnesses in this case.
17. The prosecution exhibited the written report as Exhibit-1, Copy of Agreement as Exhibit-2, Copy of application dated 15.02.2007 as Exhibit-3, Application of the Informant dated 10.12.2005 and 30.04.2006 as Exhibits- 4 and 4/1, Copy of Panchayatnama as 'X', Copy of newspaper cuttings of Dainik Jagran as 'X', Endorsement on written report as Exhibit-5, Formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-6, Sanction for prosecution as Exhibit-
77, Certified Copy of Complaint Petition in 699/07 as Exhibit-8 and C.C. of order-sheet as Exhibit-9.
18. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the petitioner and other accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they claimed to be innocent. Thereafter, the accused persons examined two witnesses in their defence. They are Md. Ashraf Shah as D.W.-1 and Sahlat Fahad as D.W.-2. They also exhibited the C.C. of Compromise Petition as Exhibit-A.
19. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered the oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence and recorded its findings in Para-10. The findings with regard to the petitioner read as under :
"10. On carefully scrutiny of evidence of all the witnesses and also considering the material available on the case record, it is apparent that Shagufta is legally married wife of Sohlat Fahad and after marriage, she was taken to her sasural and according to all the witnesses examined by the prosecution, she was tortured for demand of dowry. It is also apparent that most of the time, she was living with her husband at Barkakana, but the witnesses have also stated that after marriage, she was taken to her sasural where all the accused persons assaulted her and tortured her for demand of dowry. Witnesses have also stated that all the accused persons used to instigate Sohlat Fahad for torturing the informant upon which he used to brutally torture the informant. It has also come in evidence of the witnesses that Sohlat Fahad did not properly maintain her three children. From the evidence of the witnesses, it also clear that his Mamia Sasur and Jaith were living separately and Nanad of the informant is married in Chakulia. All the witnesses have categorically deposed in their evidence that her husband by pouring kerosene oil upon her tried to kill her, but on hulla, neighbour reached there and saved her, but no injury report has been filed in this case and doctor has also not been examined. Further, it appears that in this case, I.O. has also been examined by the prosecution, who has fully supported the prosecution case. P.W.-2 informant Shagufta Parween has stated in her cross- examination at para-7 that Nanad Lamat is married in chakuliya, but living beside her house. Further, in Para-3 of her cross-examination stated that Mama sasur and Jaith Ebadur Rahman is living separately.
From perusal of evidence of the witnesses examined on 8 behalf of the prosecution, I find specific charges of torture made against husband of the informant, as all the witnesses have deposed that she was brutally tortured by her husband at Barkakana, where other accused persons were not residing and no specific allegation of torture has been made against other accused persons. It has also come-up on record that husband has filed a case of restitution of conjugal rights at Hazaribag which was compromised and informant has also reported the matter to Barkakana P.S., G.M. of Barkakana. Defence case is that they never tortured her for demand of dowry, rather she was not interested in residing at Barkakana with her husband and for that purpose, a case was filed by her husband at Hazaribag and thereafter, her husband divorced her on 6th December, 2006 and the instant case has been filed by the informant only with a view to pressurise them for the purpose of extorting money and black mail. In this case, prosecution has also proved sanction for prosecution under Dowry Prohibition Act, but none of the witnesses said how much money was demanded by the accused persons and whether demand of dowry was fulfilled by the informant's parents."
20. The learned trial court acquitted Ebadul Rahman, Tahira Khatoon, Lamat Alia, Aftab Alam and Mupejul Haq from all charges giving benefit of doubt and also acquitted the petitioner from the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but convicted him under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and observed that there is no need to convict him for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
21. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court also considered the evidences adduced on behalf of the Informant and the defence and the arguments of both the parties and recorded its findings in Para-17, 18 and 19 which read as under:
"17. After carefully considering the evidence of the witnesses and the material which are available on record, I find that informant in the written report has mentioned that after marriage, when she went to her sasural, then demand of additional dowry was made and they pressurized her to bring additional dowry and was being tortured and assaulted. The husband also tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil. Informant has been examined in this case as P.W.-2. In her evidence in court, she has fully supported the contention which she has said in written report and has repeated the allegation with regard to the torture made upon her by her husband and 9 other in-laws. Similarly, P.W.-1, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 all these witnesses have said with regard to the torture made upon the informant by the accused persons and by her husband. They have said that after marriage, when the informant went to in-laws house, the demand of additional dowry was made from her by her husband and other in-laws and to fulfill the same, she was being tortured and assaulted. It has also come in the evidence of these witnesses that this appellant has tried to kill the appellant by pouring kerosene oil upon her, but due to intervention of neighbour persons, she was saved and ultimately, she was forced to leave the in-laws house. It has also come in the evidence that parents of the informant tried to pacify the matter, but due to the demand made by the accused persons, settlement was not done.
18. The defence witness examined in this case has said in their evidence that behaviour of the informant was not good. She was behaving very cruelly with the appellant and his family members and due to her behaviour, she was not ready to live with the appellant.
19. The evidence of the witnesses which has come during the trial of this case shows that all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution and they have said with regard to the torture made upon the informant by this appellant. The defence witnesses have tried to contradict the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but they failed to do so. All the prosecution witnesses are consistent in their cross-examination also. Although, except P.W.-2, all the witnesses are hearsay, but they come to know with regard to the occurrence from the mouth of the informant and they have seen the sign of assault on the body of the informant. The material on record clearly indicates that torture was made upon the informant by this appellant due to the demand of additional dowry and ultimately, she was forced to leave the in- laws house inspite of having three children born from the wedlock of the appellant and informant."
22. This Court finds that the Informant has been examined as P.W.-2 who said in her evidence that her marriage was solemnised on 02.02.1999 with the petitioner and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial house where the petitioner alongwith her in-laws demanded additional dowry and on non-fulfilment of the same, she was tortured and the petitioner told her that if the demand is not fulfilled, she will be divorced and the petitioner will solemnise second marriage. She further deposed that the petitioner assaulted her by iron rod and other weapons and her in-laws instigated the 10 petitioner for doing so. She further deposed that a Panchayati was also held, but torture continued. She further said that she has three children who were not taken care of by the accused persons and the petitioner also tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil upon her and ultimately, she came to her father's house. In cross-examination, she further said that the petitioner and her in-laws were torturing her. She further said that she has not mentioned the date of assault in the written report because she was always being assaulted by the accused persons and she has received several injuries on her body. She further said that the petitioner tortured her in such a manner that she does not want to live with him. She admitted that the petitioner has filed a divorce case.
23. This Court further finds that the Informant (P.W.-2) in her evidence has fully supported her version made in her written report and the other witnesses, P.W.-1, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 have fully corroborated the torture made upon the informant by the petitioner and they have specifically said that they have seen the marks of assault on the body of the informant and they came to know about the occurrence from the informant. In this view of the matter, the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that the informant has not proved any injury report would not absolve the petitioner from the charges of cruelty and torture.
24. This Court further finds that the period of the occurrence during which the demand of additional dowry was made from the informant and the assault, torture and cruelty committed to her are related to the period prior to the date of divorce between the petitioner and the informant by way of Triple Talak which is said to have taken place on 06.12.2006 from the side of the petitioner, although the F.I.R. was filed on 01.03.2007. Therefore, this Court does not find any force on the contention of the petitioner that the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code would not be applicable against 11 the petitioner only because the date of FIR is 01.03.2007 and the date of divorce as claimed by the petitioner is 06.12.2006.
25. This Court also finds that the arguments which have been advanced before this Court on the merits of the case have also been argued and considered in the impugned judgements. Merely because there has been no quantification of the amount of additional dowry demand, is not fatal to the prosecution case. The circumstances of the case reflects that there has been continuous torture of the informant and demand of additional dowry since the date of her marriage in the year 1999 and ultimately, she was forced to leave her matrimonial house with her three children. The prosecution witnesses including the informant (victim wife) were thoroughly cross- examined, but nothing could be elicited to shake her credibility and her evidence has also been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses. A finding has been recorded in Para-19 of the appellate court's judgment that although other witnesses are said to be hearsay, but they have seen the injuries on the body of the informant-victim-Opposite Party No.2.
26. So far as the judgment passed by learned Family Court, Hazaribagh dated 18.06.2014 is concerned, this Court finds that it is not clear from the argument of the parties as to whether the said declaration of the matrimonial status of the petitioner and the Informant has attained finality or not. Further, upon perusal of the said judgment dated 18.06.2014, it appears that one of the witnesses has stated that talak had taken place on 06.12.2007 and this discrepancy in the date has been stated to be error of record/typographical error as per the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but there is no such record before this Court to substantiate the same. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the incident in the present case is related to the period when the marriage was subsisting and accordingly, subsequent talak and/or filing of case for declaration of matrimonial status between the petitioner and 12 the Informant and grant of decree in favour of the petitioner has no bearing in the present case particularly when the relevant dates of the so called triple talak (06.12.2006), filing of matrimonial case by the petitioner for declaration of matrimonial status ( 17.02.2007) and filing of the criminal case by the opposite party no. 2 (01.03.2007) are in close proximity and there is no scope for reappreciation of evidence by this Court in revisional jurisdiction to come to a different finding that the criminal case was filed only as a retaliation of the matrimonial suit for declaration of marital status between the parties. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the informant had knowledge about filing of matrimonial suit by the petitioner at the time of filing the criminal case.
27. So far as the judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner reported in (2019) 13 SCC 398 (Mohammad Miyan and Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.) is concerned, the same does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, the only date of incident of the alleged offence of demand of dowry was 15.02.2012, and in the F.I.R dated 18.08.2015, the complainant herself had stated that her divorce had taken place about 4 years back and in this background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that where the complainant approaches with a case that there has been a divorce 4 years ago before filing of the F.I.R, Section 498A of Indian Penal Code would not be attracted as Section 498A of Indian Penal Code opens with the words "whosoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women". Thus the incident in the said case was admittedly post-divorce.
In the present case, the incident relates to the period prior to the date of the so called talak (06.12.2006) though the criminal case was filed on 01.03.2007 and the matrimonial suit for declaration of the status of the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 was filed on 17.02.2007.
28. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a 13 judgment passed by this Court in Cr.M.P No.215 of 2005 (Pradeep Kumar Bhandari and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.), decided on 05.08.2009. In the said case, the Title Matrimonial Suit No.17 of 2002 was filed in the court of learned District Judge, Pakur and was jointly signed by the husband and wife. After filing of the matrimonial suit, the case was adjourned for 6 months as per the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act and the next date was fixed on 07.04.2003. On 07.04.2003, the husband and wife were examined by the learned District Judge, Pakur and on the same day, the learned District Judge, Pakur allowed the matrimonial suit and dissolved the marriage and a decree was signed on 25.04.2003. The wife in the said case had filed criminal case in the year 2004 and the Hon'ble Court observed that since the marriage between the husband and wife was already dissolved, case under Section 498A as well as 494 of Indian Penal Code was not made out. Upon perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the date of the alleged incident is not clear and admittedly the husband had solemnized the second marriage after the divorce i.e., on 30.04.2004. Admittedly in the said case, the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent between the parties and the criminal case was filed subsequent thereto. This Court finds that the said judgment also does not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case.
29. So far as judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Shanmughavelu Vs. State decided on 23.02.2004 reported in 2004 Cri. Law Journal 2731 is concerned, the same also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, the Hon'ble Madras High Court quashed the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge - cum - Chief Judicial Magistrate convicting the appellant under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the ground that the ill-treatment and demand of dowry was not proved by specific evidence and 14 delay in lodging the case was also not properly explained and further that the demand of dowry was vague and uncertain. The Hon'ble Madras High Court was of the view in the facts and circumstances of the said case that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and it was difficult to sustain the guilt and conviction recorded by the learned trial court. The Hon'ble Madras High Court was exercising jurisdiction in criminal appeal against the order of conviction, whereas the present proceeding is criminal revision which has very limited scope for interference in the impugned judgments. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such error in the impugned judgments calling for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
30. So far as judgment passed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of (Sri Ashfaq Ali Vs. Smt. Kaneez Fatima) decided on 29.08.2019 in Criminal Petition No.7232 of 2016 is concerned, the same also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Considering the fact that complaint in the said case was filed after dissolution of marriage and the decree was passed by the Family Court in terms of settlement entered into between the parties at the mediation centre. It was admitted that talak was pronounced by the accused-husband and it was also agreed to take all lawful steps to request the jurisdictional Courts/Authorities to dispose of all the criminal / civil cases as per law. In the said case, the alleged incident was of the year 2010 and the dissolution of marriage was passed in O.S. No.216 of 2015 in terms of settlement and the criminal case was filed in the year 2016 after dissolution of marriage.
31. Another judgment relied upon by the petitioner has been passed by this Court on 13.05.2004 in the case of Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2006 (1) JCR 183 (Jhr) wherein a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C was filed challenging the order taking cognizance dated 01.02.2002 15 passed in a complaint case of the year 2001 under Section 498A, 323, 379 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court was pleased to quash the order taking cognizance as this Court found that the cause of action for the case filed in the year 2001 was right from the year 1983 to 2000, but no case was filed in the year 2000 and in the beginning of 2001, the complaint case was filed only after Title (M) Suit No.22 of 2001 was filed in June, 2001 and notice was issued on 03.12.2001 and in the facts of the case, it was held that the complaint case was filed with malafide intention.
This Court finds that the aforesaid judgment also does not apply to facts and circumstances of this case as there is no scope to hold that the criminal case in the present case was filed with malafide intent and there is nothing on record to show that the wife had any knowledge about filing of the matrimonial suit by the petitioner prior to filing of her complaint case as the date of filing the matrimonial case and complaint case are in close proximity. The claimed divorce is said to have been given by the husband to the wife on 06.12.2006, the matrimonial suit seeking declaration of the status of the petitioner and the complaint case was filed on 17.02.2007 and the criminal case was filed on 01.03.2007. Moreover, no case is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
32. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
33. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have carefully scrutinized the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and have recorded consistent and concurrent findings of facts and have found sufficient evidence for conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
34. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this 16 Court finds that both the learned courts below have passed well-reasoned judgements considering every aspect of the matter and every argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments calling for any interference under revisional jurisdiction.
35. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is hereby upheld and this criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed.
36. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
37. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is hereby cancelled.
38. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also dismissed as not pressed.
39. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned.
40. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through "FAX/Email".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit /Saurav