Case Law Details
Sunil Pandit Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
The Patna High Court recently ruled on a case involving Sunil Pandit versus the State of Bihar, focusing on an unjustifiable trial under Section 498A IPC.
The judgment revolves around the revision directed against the verdict of the learned Additional Sessions Judge III’ Court at Samastipur, affirming the conviction of Sunil Pandit for offences under Sections 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Despite the trial court’s and appellate court’s findings, the High Court scrutinized the petition of complaint and concluded that Sunil Pandit, accused no. 4, was not a relative of the complainant’s husband as stipulated in Section 498A.
The Court noted that Sunil Pandit had endured the ordeal of a criminal trial and detention despite the case being not maintainable against him. Consequently, the Court ordered compensation of ₹100 each, payable by two judicial officers involved in the case, highlighting the importance of diligently assessing complaints before initiating legal proceedings.
The directive emphasizes the responsibility of judicial officers to carefully consider complaints before taking cognizance, thereby preventing unjust trials and protecting individuals from unwarranted legal proceedings. The token compensation serves as a reminder of this duty and aims to mitigate the consequences of procedural lapses.
In conclusion, the Patna High Court’s judgment in the case of Sunil Pandit versus the State of Bihar underscores the significance of procedural diligence in legal proceedings. By ordering compensation for an unjust trial, the Court reaffirms the principle of justice and accountability within the judicial system. This ruling sets a precedent for conscientious consideration of complaints and serves to safeguard individuals against wrongful prosecution.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
The instant revision is directed against the judgment and order of affirmation passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge III’ Court at Samastipur on 28th June 2016, in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the appellate Court maintained the order passed by the trial court, of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentence of the petitioner to suffer imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default clause for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine and default clause for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Without going into the merit of the case and the finding of both the trial court as well as the court of appeal, this Court finds on perusal of the petition of complaint, on the basis of which, Complaint Case No. 172 of 2004 was registered that the present petitioner is not a relative of the husband of the complainant as provided in Section 498A of the IPC. It is clearly stated by the complainant in page 04 of the complaint that the present petitioner who was arrayed as accused no. 4 was an advisor of other accused persons (……………….)
3. As the petitioner was made to suffer a criminal trial which is not maintainable against him and he was compelled to be confined in the correctional home at different points of time. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be compensated since the petitioner was made to suffer the agony and trauma of a criminal trial as well as detention in custody for taking cognizance against him by the learned Magistrate and putting him in trial in a case which is not maintainable against him, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- each payable by the learned Judicial Magistrate, namely, Sri Raman and Ram, S.D.J.M, Dalsingsarai- Samastipur and Hanuman Prasad Tiwari, Additional Sessions Judge, III’ Court, Samastipur, on 28th June 2016.
4. The concerned judicial officers are directed to deposit the fine amount in the Criminal Cash Section of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur within three weeks from the date of this order.
5. I am consciously issued the order for payment of compensation directing the concerned Judicial Officers to pay a token amount because in the instant case compensation is not assessed on the basis of the mental agony and trauma and social ignominy suffered by the petitioner due to seer lackadaisical approach of both the courts below. The amount of compensation is fixed as a token to remind the concerned Judicial Officers that before taking cognizance and also during judicial inquiry and trial, it is the bounden and obligatory duty of all the courts to go through the complaint carefully and then to take cognizance and proceed against the accused persons in accordance with law.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General, High Court at Patna for information and necessary action intimating the concerned Judicial Officers to comply with this order within three weeks from the date of communication.
7. Since the accused/petitioner cannot be booked for committing offence under Sections 498A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he is acquitted from the charge, set at liberty and released from the liability of bail bond.
8. The instant revision is accordingly allowed on contest.
Author Bio
