Patna High Court
Bhagwan SethversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The Court modified the sentence to the period already served, ordered the petitioners' release, and retained the fine liability.
Summary
Petitioners Bhagwan Seth and Sumitra Devi, convicted under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine, filed a criminal revision seeking relief. The opposite party, Meena Devi, asserted that a mutual‑consent divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act had been finalized and a lump‑sum settlement of Rs.5,00,000 had been paid, leaving no dispute. The petitioners, aged over 85, had already served more than nine months of their sentence. The High Court, considering the settlement, the elapsed incarceration, and the petitioners' age, modified the sentence to the period already served and ordered their immediate release, while retaining the fine liability. Consequently, the revision petition was disposed of, and the petitioners were released.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under Section 498A can be set aside or the sentence modified on account of a settlement and mutual‑consent divorce.
- Whether the time already served suffices to satisfy the term of imprisonment.
- Whether the fine imposed under the conviction remains payable despite sentence modification.
Legislation cited
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- criminal revision
- Section 498A
- sentence modification
- mutual consent divorce
- settlement
- fine
- elderly prisoners
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.704 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2001 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas
======================================================
1. Bhagwan Seth son of Late Jagarnath Seth Village- Shahpur, PS- Sheosagar,
Dist – Rohtas.
2. Sumitra devi Wife of Bhagwan Seth Village- Shahpur, Ps- Sheosagar, Dist –
Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Meena Devi wife of Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Seth Village- Shahpur, Ps-
Sheosagar, Dist - Rohtas Daughter of Late Sita Ram Prasad, At Present
Resident of Mohalla- Jakky Bigha, PS- Dehri, Dist- Rohtas
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Namrata Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Jyoti Prasad, Advocate
For the O.P.-State : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Meena Devi, In-person
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
6 02-02-2026 Heard Ms. Namrata Mishra, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners, assisted by learned
counsel, Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, and learned APP for the State
as well as opposite party no. 2, Ms. Meena Devi in person.
2. Opposite Party No. 2 has furnished a copy of her
Aadhar Card bearing No. 791030975986, which is taken on
record. She has been identified by Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.704 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
2/4
by the petitioners for setting aside the order/judgment dated
20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2016 (CIS No.
38 of 2016) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIV,
Rohtas at Sasaram, whereby and whereunder the learned
appellate court has affirmed the judgment and order dated
24.06.2016 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Dehri in Complaint Case No. 560 of 2001 in which
the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.
2,500/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioners have to
undergo further simple imprisonment for the period of three
months.
4. The opposite party no. 2 submits that the matter has
been settled with her husband, Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Seth,
and the petitioners. Opposite Party No. 2 also submits that the
divorce with mutual consent has taken place between the son of
the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 under Section 13B of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and decision in this regard has
been passed by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Rohtas at Sasaram on 04.06.2025. Opposite Party No. 2
further submits that she has received one time settlement
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.704 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
3/4
amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakh) and there remains no
dispute between the parties.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that all the aforesaid facts have been
brought on record in the present revision petition and relevant
documents have also been attached, particularly, the copy of the
order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family court, Rohtas at Sasaram in Divorce Case No. 76 of
2025. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioners
are aged about more than 85 years and they are in custody since
16.04.2025. The punishment awarded to the petitioners for two
years and the petitioners have already suffered incarceration for
more than 09 months. Learned senior counsel further submits
that though the impugned order has been assailed on a number
of ground, considering the settlement arrived at between the
parties, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the
petitioners in custody who have already suffered incarceration
during the trial. Learned senior counsel further submits that the
divorce with mutual consent has already taken place and the
opposite party no. 2 has been given lump-sum amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- (five lakh) by son of the petitioners as one time
settlement and nothing remains in the matter.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.704 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
4/4
6. Having regarding to facts and circumstances and
submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the
settlement between the parties and also considering the period
of incarceration already undergone by the petitioners, I am of
the opinion that the sentence could be suitably modified so as to
release the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners above
named, are ordered to be released forthwith and their sentence is
modified to the period already undergone. However, fine of Rs.
2,500/- each will be paid by the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands
disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
U T
Checking your session…