Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 236 (MP)

Kamlakar Mahadevrao Patil v. State of M. P.

2004-03-10

S.K.PANDE

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Section 482 of Cr. PC the petitioners request to quash the proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 110/01 before the ASJ, Raisen arising out of judgment dated 5-12-01 passed by Additional CJM, Bareli in Criminal Case No. 287/96. ( 2. ) PETITIONER K. M. Patil and Mrs. Meera Patil were married on 10-2-85. They were posted in their employment at Badi Bareli (Raisen) and Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) respectively. Despite best efforts petitioner could not be posted at one place and as a result, marriage between petitioners had faced rough face and suffered from incompatibility. The relations got strained. Petitioner K. M. Patil filed C. S. No. 20-A/96 before II ADJ, Rajnandgaon for judicial separation. In the meanwhile petitioner Mrs. Meera Patil filed a report in the year 1995 at Police Station, Badi making allegations of dowry demand against the petitioner K. M. Patil while her stay with him in the year 1987-88. On the basis, the Police completing the investigation, charge-sheeted the petitioner K. M. Patil under Section 498-A of IPC. Cr. Case No. 287/96 accordingly was registered in the Court of ACJM, Bareli. Concluding the trial, the ACJM vide judgment dated 5-12-01 recording conviction of petitioner K. M. Patil under Section 498-A, IPC sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Being aggrieved, the petitioner K. M. Patil preferred Cr. Appeal No. 110/01 before the 3rd ASJ, Raisen. The petitioner K. M. Patil filed C. S. No. 77-A/01 before the 1st ADJ, Rajnandgaon for dissolution of marriage with petitioner Mrs. Meera Patil. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit for divorce, petitioners substantially patched up their differences, and their relations were improved and harmonized to a great extent. In order to settle their lives respectively the petitioners decided to obtain decree for divorce pursuant to mutual consent and as a result decree of divorce was passed on 30-7-03. Due to complete normalization of lives of petitioners they compromised their dispute and differences and entered into a compromise recorded on 23-4-03. Accordingly, an application under Section 320 (2), Cr. PC was filed before the 3rd ASJ, Raisen in Cr. Appeal No. 110/01. Due to complete normalization of lives of petitioners they compromised their dispute and differences and entered into a compromise recorded on 23-4-03. Accordingly, an application under Section 320 (2), Cr. PC was filed before the 3rd ASJ, Raisen in Cr. Appeal No. 110/01. The Court below without considering the facts and circumstances of the case passed a mechanical order rejecting the application aforesaid on sole ground that offence under Section 498-A, IPC is non compoundable. Therefore, petitioners request to quash and set aside the order dated 15-9-03 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 287/96 resulting into conviction of petitioner K. M. Patil. ( 3. ) IN B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386 , it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:- "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands or dowry. The hyper technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. " ( 4. ) ON facts and similar circumstances in Criminal Revision No. 701/03, decided on 9-12-03, Bench of this Court allowing the application filed by the parties set aside the conviction of accused under Section 498-A of IPC. ( 5. ) EXPLAINING the facts a joint petition (D-1) under Section 320 (2), Cr. PC was filed by the petitioners. A compromise (D-2) was enclosed. Since the application aforesaid was rejected vide order dated 15-9-03 petitioners jointly have come up with petition under Section 482 of Cr. PC. ( 5. ) EXPLAINING the facts a joint petition (D-1) under Section 320 (2), Cr. PC was filed by the petitioners. A compromise (D-2) was enclosed. Since the application aforesaid was rejected vide order dated 15-9-03 petitioners jointly have come up with petition under Section 482 of Cr. PC. Due to complete normalization of lives of parties petitioners have compromised the dispute and differences and have entered into a compromise. The Court below ought not to have passed a mechanical order rejecting the application on sole ground that offence under Section 498-A of IPC is not compoundable. With reference to B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana (supra ). The joint petition under Section 482 filed by the petitioner K. M. Patil and Mrs. Meera Patil stands allowed. Setting aside the order dated 15-9-03 passed by 3rd ASJ, Raisen, Cr. Appeal No. 110/01 stands allowed. ( 6. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the judgment dated 5-12-01 passed by ACJM, Bareli in Cr. Case No. 287/96 recording conviction under Section 498-A of IPC sentencing him to undergo R. I. for a period of one year and to pay fine Rs. 3000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months being set aside, further proceedings are quashed. The amount of fine if deposited in Cr. Case No. 287/96 shall be refunded to the petitioner K. M. Patil.