Patna HC Orders 2 Judicial Officers To Pay ₹200 As 'Token' Compensation To Man For Subjecting Him To Unjustifiable Trial U/S 498A IPC
In a one-of-a-kind order, the Patna High Court has directed two judicial officers of the state to pay compensation of ₹100 each to a man subjected to an unjustifiable trial under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case in question revolved around allegations of harassment and cruelty against the man (revisionist) even though he was not a relative of the husband of...
In a one-of-a-kind order, the Patna High Court has directed two judicial officers of the state to pay compensation of ₹100 each to a man subjected to an unjustifiable trial under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case in question revolved around allegations of harassment and cruelty against the man (revisionist) even though he was not a relative of the husband of the complainant-woman, which is the primary requirement under Section 498A of the IPC.
“As the petitioner (revisionist) 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,” a bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed.
The Court added that the amount of compensation was being fixed as a “token” to remind the concerned Judicial Officers that before taking cognizance and also during judicial inquiry and trial, it is their “bounden and obligatory duty to go through the complaint carefully” and then to take cognizance and proceed against the accused persons in accordance with the law.
The court passed this order on a revision plea moved by a man (Sunil Pandit-Revisionist) challenging the judgment and order of affirmation passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Criminal Appeal whereby the order of the trial court was affirmed, wherein he was convicted under Sections 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and was sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-
Without going into the merit of the case and the findings of both the trial court and the court of appeal, the High Court found on the perusal of the petition of complaint that the revisionist was not a relative of the complainant woman's husband but only an advisor of other accused persons.
Noting that the revisionist 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”, the Court asserted that the revisionist was entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- each payable by the Judicial Magistrate, namely, Sri Ramanand Ram, SDJM, Dalsingsarai- Samastipur and Hanuman Prasad Tiwari, Additional Sessions Judge Samastipur.
The concerned judicial officers have been directed to deposit the fine amount in the Criminal Cash Section of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur within three weeks.
Lastly, stating that the accused/petitioner could not have been booked for committing an offence under Sections 498A and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Court acquitted him of the charges, set him at liberty, and released him from the liability of bail bond.
Case title – Sunil Pandit vs. State of Bihar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 33