Patna High Court Directs Two Judicial Officers to Compensate Man with ₹200 for Unwarranted Trial under Section 498A IPC

In a unique ruling, the Patna High Court has instructed two judicial officers in the state to individually compensate a man with ₹100 each. This decision comes in response to an unwarranted trial the man endured under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case centered on accusations of harassment and cruelty against the man (the revisionist), despite lacking the crucial relationship of being a relative of the complainant-woman’s husband, as mandated by 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 emphasized that the compensation amount was set as a “token” to remind the respective Judicial Officers of their crucial duty. They are obligated to carefully review complaints before taking action and ensure that proceedings adhere to legal standards during inquiry and trial.

This ruling stemmed from a revision plea filed by Sunil Pandit challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur. The judge upheld the trial court’s decision, which convicted Pandit under Sections 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentencing him to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.

While refraining from delving into the case’s merits or the lower courts’ findings, the High Court observed from the complaint petition that Pandit wasn’t a relative of the complainant woman’s husband but merely an advisor to other accused individuals.

The High Court noted that Pandit underwent an unjustifiable criminal trial, resulting in his confinement in a correctional facility at various intervals. As such, the Court decreed that Pandit deserved compensation of Rs. 100 each from the Judicial Magistrates involved, namely Sri Ramanand Ram, SDJM, Dalsingsarai-Samastipur, and Hanuman Prasad Tiwari, Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur.

The designated judicial officers are instructed to remit the fine amount to the Criminal Cash Section of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, within three weeks.