Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1077 (PAT)

Shyama Devi v. State Of Bihar

2005-12-20

NAVIN SINHA

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 as also learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are the mother-in-law and the husband of O.P. No. 2. 3. An FIR being Amarpur P.S. Case No. 69/03 was lodged. The allegation was that the daughter of the informant O.P. No. 2, had been taken away by the petitioners in a white coloured maruti car on the pretext of doing pooja at the mandir she did not return thereafter. When the O.P. No. 3 would have queried about his daughter from petitioner No. 1 she would have allegedly made a demand for Rs. 1,00,000/-. The allegations were, therefore, registered under Section 366/34 of IPC. 4. The interesting aspect of the matter would be that after the institution of the aforesaid FIR on 11.4.2003 the husband of petitioner No. 1 (father of the petitioner No. 2) filed complaint Case No. 383/03 on 16.4.2003 under Sections 363, 364 and 365/ 34 of IPC against the present informant and his family members alleging abduction of his son, i.e. presently petitioner No. 2. The parties what would transpire is that both petitioner No. 2 and O.P. No. 2 would be majors. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this context places reliance on a supplementary affidavit and an order dated 9.12.2003 in an anticipatory bail applications (Cr. Misc. No. 26943 and 27010 of 2003) preferred by the present petitioners where O.P. No. 2, wife of petitioner No. 2, would have also appeared before this Court and the factum of her majority would have been recorded. 5. Clearly this was a case where the FIR came to be lodged by O.P. No. 3 unhappy with the conduct of his daughter who unfortunately was now a major and was not amenable to his full control. 6. This Court queried from the Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 3 whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, would it not be in the interest of matrimonial harmony of O.P. No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 that the animosity be given a burial. Learned Counsel on instructions, with fairness conceded the point. He, however, submitted that the petitioners should likewise withdraw complaint case No. 382/03. Learned Counsel on instructions, with fairness conceded the point. He, however, submitted that the petitioners should likewise withdraw complaint case No. 382/03. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he shall instruct his clients accordingly and that complaint Case No. 383/03 shall be withdrawn by filing an appropriate application before the Court below alongwith a copy of the order of this Court presently. 7. The allegations presently would be under Section 366 of the Penal Code. The offence would be non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. This Court, however, cannot lose sight of the fact that at issue now is the marital bliss of the newly wed couple. 8. Can this Court then, in the facts and circumstances of the case quash the proceedings under Section 366 read with 34 of the Penal Code? 9. The answer is to be found in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 : 2003 (2) East Cr C 220 (SC), B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana. The High Court had refused to quash a proceeding under Section 498-A of the Penal Code on the reason that the offence would be non-compoundable. Their Lordships held at paragraph 8 as under : "8........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." 10. Considering the matter in the matrimonial perspective Their Lordships at paragraphs 12 and 13 noted that : "12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of material disputes." "13........Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process that parties lose their "young" days, in chasing their "cases" in different Courts." The conclusion was then drawn up in paragraph 14 as under : "14......The hyper-technical view would be counter productive arid 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 proceeding to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code." 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in matrimonial matters, this Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and also the developments subsequently, more particularly the fairness on part of the O.P. No. 3, is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of a criminal prosecution, which in the facts and circumstances of the case noticed above may well be counter productive. The continuance of the prosecution would, therefore, clearly not be in the interest of justice and would be an abuse of the process of law. In the result this application is allowed. The entire proceedings in Amarpur P.S. Case No. 69/03 against the petitioners are hereby quashed No. order as to costs.