Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 54 (PNJ)

Yogesh Sharma v. State of Punjab

2004-01-15

JASBIR SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - Petitioners have moved this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer that FIR No. 139 dated 15.3.2001 registered under Sections 406/498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda be quashed. Above-mentioned FIR was recorded at the instance of respondent No. 2-Rekha Sharma wife of petitioner No. 1. 2. Facts regarding marriage between respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1, their strained relations and recording of FIR are not in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed his prayer for quashing of FIR on the ground that compromise has already been effected between the parties. He states that on the basis of compromise, joint petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. He has placed on record photo-copy of order passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda dated 12.8.2002 vide which the decree for dissolution of marriage of parties by way of mutual consent was passed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel has also referred to an affidavit Annexure P-2 dated 10.10.2001 of respondent No. 2 wherein she has accepted the factum of compromise. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, for quashing the FIR has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, JT 2003(3) SC 277. In that case, the Honble Supreme Court was dealing with the matrimonial dispute and following question was formulated for consideration : "2. X X X X The scope and ambit of power under section 482 has been examined by this Court in catena of earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes. The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code not only against the husband but his other family members also. The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code not only against the husband but his other family members also. When such matters are resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the first information report or complaint filed by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint." 4. After considering the facts of that case and the various earlier judgments, following opinion was formed by their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court : "8. It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limayes case does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of the Code of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A 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 of dowry. The hyper- technical view would be counter productive and would act againt 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 for settling earlier. The hyper- technical view would be counter productive and would act againt 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 for settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA 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." 5. Mr. Gill, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has failed to show anything as to why the FIR in dispute be not quashed. It is apparent from the record that due to some mis-understanding, relations between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had become strained. However, subsequent thereto, with the intervention of family members and relatives, they have settled their dispute. Respondent No. 2 had executed an affidavit in that regard. They had also moved an application for mutual divorce, which was allowed by the competent Court vide order dated 12.8.2002. This Court feels that continuing with the pending litigation would be nothing but an exercise in futility as respondent No. 2 is not likely to support the case of the prosecution at the time of trial. 6. Purpose of criminal law justice is not only to enforce penal law and bring discipline in the society but is also to provide an opportunity to litigating parties to rehabilitate themselves in life. Both the parties have made an attempt in that regard which requires to be appreciated. Under these circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice and in the interest of parties to quash the FIR in dispute. 7. In view of the facts mentioned above, application is allowed. FIR No. 139 dated 15.3.2001 and subsequent proceedings thereto are ordered to be quashed. However, parties are directed to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise. Application allowed.