Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1052 (JHR)

SALLESH BHARDWAJ SHARMA v. STATE

2004-10-29

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
Judgment : ( 1 ) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in connection with Complaint case No. 389 of 1996 including the order dated 5th November, 1996, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offences under sections 406, 420, 498-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as also the order dated 6th August, 2004, whereby and whereunder the application filed on behalf of the complainant (Smt. Mumta Sharma) seeking permission to withdraw the said complaint case has been rejected and all proceedings subsequent thereto in connection with the complainl case aforesaid, now pending in the Court of shri Santosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, ranchi. ( 2 ) IT is submitted that petitioner No. 1 (Sailesh Bhardwaj Sharma alias Sailesh bhardwaj) is the husband of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Mumta sharma ). Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the in-laws of the said opposite party No. 2. Because of certain misunderstanding, the aforesaid complaint case being Complaint case No. 389 of 1996 was filed by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi wherein cognizance was taken vide order dated 5-11 -1996 for the offences under sections 406, 420, 498-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the said case, good sense prevailed between the parties and they compromised the matter outside the court and a joint compromise petition was preferred by them on 8th April, 2004 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, ranchi. The complainant also filed a petition on 25th June, 2004 to withdraw the said complaint case but it was rejected by the Court below. 3a. Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 submits that the parties have already compromised the matter and for the ends of justice, it will be desirable to close the proceedings as the husband and wife desires to live together. ( 4 ) SIMILAR case fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003 SCC (Cri)848 : ( AIR 2003 SC 1386 : 2003 Cri LJ 2028 ). That was the case in which the complainant-wile had filed a petition against her husband for the offences under sections 498-A/323 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. That was the case in which the complainant-wile had filed a petition against her husband for the offences under sections 498-A/323 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on, both the parties settled the dispute and agreeing to mutual divorce. They filed a joint compromise petition before the court to quash the proceedings but it was not entertained. The High Court also refused to interfere with that proceeding. The Supreme Court, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances that the dispute was between the husband and wife and a compromise petition was filed by them and there was almost no chance of conviction held that it would be improper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-cotnpoundable offences. The supreme Court held that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier and that would be against the object of Section 498-A of the indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) IN the facts and circumstances, since the husband and wife compromised the matter in their interest, it is not desirable that the case should proceed any further. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this Court set aside the Complaint Case No. 389 of 1996. preferred by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and all proceedings subsequent thereto, now pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. This application is, accordingly, allowed. Application allowed. --- *** --- .