Present

Mr. Justice Sheikh Abdul Awal

Criminal Revision No. 2711 of 2016

and

Criminal Revision No. 2712 of 2016

Kamal Mia

................Convict-Petitioner. -Versus-

The State

                                                            .....Opposite party.

Mr. Md. Shah Paran Chowdhury, Advocate

.....For the Petitioner.

Ms. Shahida Khatoon, D.A.G with Ms. Sabina Perven, A.A.G with Ms. Kohenoor Akter, A.A.G.

   .... For the State-Opposite party No.1. Mr. Mohammad Abdul Jalil, Advocate

             .... For the complainant. Heard on 27.05.2024 and

Judgment on 02.06.2024

Sheikh Abdul Awal, J:

Common question of law and facts are involved in these two Rules are between the same parties and as such

they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

In Criminal Revision No. 2711 of 2016, the Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Brahmanbaria in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2016 dismissing the appeal and affirming  the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.05.2016 passed by the learned Senior Judicial Magistrate, Brahmanbaria in C.R Case No. 305 of 2015 convicting the petitioner under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 and sentencing him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1(one) year should not be set-aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

In Criminal Revision No. 2712 of 2016 the Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Brahmanbaria in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2016 dismissing the appeal and affirming  the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.02.2016 passed by the learned Senior Judicial Magistrate, Brahmanbaria in C.R Case No. 353 of 2015 convicting the petitioner under section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Ordinance and sentencing him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6(six) months should not be set-aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Today while the matter was taken up for pronouncement of judgment, the learned Advocates for both the parties filed separate “aposhnama” under their  joint signature in both the Criminal Revisions stating in the following language:

আেপােষর শত 

১। বাদীিন পািরবািরক মামলার িড  ী ও আেদশ অনুযায় ীযাবতীয় পাওনা (কািবেনর টাকা+ভরণেপাষণ) বু ঝয়া পাইয়ােছন। তার আর

কান দাবী-দাওয়া নাই।

২। আসামী ০৩  ট মামলা খালাস পাইেত বাদীিনর  কান আপি  নাই।

Mr. Md. Shah Paran Chowdhury, the learned Advocate appearing for the convict-petitioner and Mr. Mohammad Abdul Jalil, the learned Advocate appearing for the complainant jointly submitted that section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 and section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Ordinance are compoundable offence and during the pendency of the Rules, the subject matter of the cases has already been compromised in between the parties out of the Court and accordingly, they made an “aposhnama” and as such, the Rule may kindly be made absolute upon recording compromise.

Having heard the learned Advocates for both the sides, perused the deed of “aposhnama” and also perused the application for acquitting the convict -petitioner filed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and other materials on record.

By the way it may be mentioned that complainant, Argina is present in the Court along with her engaged lawyer Mr. Mohammad Abdul Jalil.

To cut short the matter at the very outset, I have gone through the relevant portion of the applications for accepting compromise  and  allow  the  revision  filed  under  the  joint signature of Mr. Md. Shah Paran Chowdhury, the learned Advocate  for  the  convict-petitioner  and  Mr.  Mohammad Abdul  Jalil,  the  learned  Advocate  for  the  complainant annexing  aposnama  executed  by  both  the  parties,  which reads as follows:

On  going  through  the  materials  on  record  together with the Aposnama , it appears that the subject matter of the cases has been compromised in between the parties out of the Court and the convict-petitioner has already  paid  the entire dower money to complainant and she prays acquittal of the convict-petitioner.

Having regard to the submission made by the learned Advocates for both the parties, I am of the view that there is no reason not to accept the compromise entered into between the parties.

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 and section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Ordinance are compoundable offence. Therefore, I am of the view that the dispute between the parties has been resolved out of the Court by the parties on compromise and the same should be allowed by the Court at any stage of the proceeding even at the appellate or revisional stage

For the reasons stated above, I allow the prayer made on behalf of the contesting parties with the direction that compromise done by the parties is hereby accepted and dispose of the Rules on the basis of the said compromise.

In the result, the both the Rule are made absolute by holding that since the matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount in terms of the said compromise has been paid, the convict petitioner is to be acquitted.

The impugned judgment and order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Brahmanbaria in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2016 dismissing the appeal and

affirming  the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.05.2016 passed by the learned Senior Judicial Magistrate, Brahmanbaria in C.R Case No. 305 of 2015 convicting the petitioner under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 and sentencing him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1(one) year and the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Brahmanbaria in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2016 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.02.2016 passed by the learned Senior Judicial Magistrate, Brahmanbaria in C.R Case No. 353 of 2015 convicting the petitioner under section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Ordinance and sentencing him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6(six) months against the petitioner are set-aside and that the convict petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

Convict petitioner, Kamal Miah is discharged from his bail bond in both the cases.

Send down the lower Court records at once.