Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1004 (MP)

Matadin. v. State of M. P.

2006-08-23

S.C.VYAS

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 234/2006 pending in the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in view of the settlement and compromise between both the parties. ( 2. ) FACTS of the case are that respondent No. 2 Arti was married to petitioner No. 4, Durgaprasad, s/o Matadin Pasi on 4. 5. 2003. It is alleged that immediately after marriage, petitioner had started harassment of the complainant Arti and made demand of dowry. She was also beaten by them. Ultimately Arti lodged a report at Police Station Bhanwarkuwa on the basis of which offence under Section 498a of IPC was registered against the petitioners and a charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore. After trial, learned Judicial Magistrate found the petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498a of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for one year with fine of Rs. 500. The impugned judgment of conviction was challenged by filing an appeal by the petitioners before Third Additional Sessions Judge, Indore which is pending. ( 3. ) DURING pendency of criminal appeal both the parties submitted an application on 1. 7. 2006 stated therein that complainant Arti and the petitioners have settled the disputes and matter has been compromised. It has also been requested that this compromise be accepted and the petitioners be acquitted of the charge. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for applicant submitted that matter under Section 13b of Hindu Marriage Act was also pending in the Family Court, Indore and in that matter final judgment have been passed and the marriage solemnised between petitioner No. 4 and complainant Arti has been dissolved and decree of divorce has been passed on mutual consent. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that complainant Arti and petitioner No. 4 Durgaprasad are now living separately with mutual consent and they are not now living as husband and wife. He submitted that in view of these circumstances when petitioner husband and complainant Arti have settled their dispute then no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings of criminal appeal and the conviction of the petitioners recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore. ( 6. He submitted that in view of these circumstances when petitioner husband and complainant Arti have settled their dispute then no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings of criminal appeal and the conviction of the petitioners recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. AIR2003 SC 1386 , (2003 )3 CALLT32 (SC ), 2003 Crilj2028 , 2003 (3 )CTC54 , I (2003 )DMC524 SC , 2003 (2 )JKJ439 [sc ], JT2003 (3 )SC 277 , 2003 (2 )KLT1062 (SC ), 2003 (3 )SCALE214 , (2003 )4 SCC675 , [2003 ]2 SCR1104 , 2003 (2 )UJ953 (SC ), wherein in paragraph 14 it has been held as under: 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 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 XXA of Indian Penal Code. ( 7. ) IN paragraph 15 it is further held as under: 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. ( 8. ) ON the basis of law laid down by Supreme Court, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the offence is punishable under Section 498a of IPC is not compoundable as per the provisions under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, but still this Court has jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. ( 8. ) ON the basis of law laid down by Supreme Court, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the offence is punishable under Section 498a of IPC is not compoundable as per the provisions under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, but still this Court has jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for quashing the criminal proceedings which have been initiated on the basis of FIR lodged by wife regarding her harassment and who have settled the dispute with the petitioners and have entered into a compromise. ( 9. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners further placed heavy reliance on the judgment of this High Court reported in the matter of Kamlakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2005 (1) MPLJ 177 , in which it has been held that even at the stage of pendency of criminal appeal conviction and sentence passed under Section 498a of IPC can be quashed by High Court in view of the compromise between the parties and on the basis of the petition filed. ( 10. ) THE Apex Court in the matter of B. S. Joshi and Ors. (supra), has laid down law on this subject and it has been clearly held that the powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. can exercise its powers, even when there is no provision of compromise or settlement provided under Section 320 of Cr. P. C. It has been clearly held that High Court can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint exercising its inherent powers and Section 320 of Cr. P. C. does not affect the powers under Section 482 of this Court. ( 11. ) IN the facts of the present case wife and members of the family of her husband have settled their dispute and have decided to live separately and, therefore, hyper-technical view regarding the compromise can be counter productive and against the interest of the woman and against the object for which the disputes between husband and wife have been settled, because in case the criminal proceedings are still permitted to continue then fresh series of dispute may start between the wife and the members of the family of her husband. In such case the settlement between the parties even in the case of Hindu Marriage Act may also be adversely effected. ( 12. In such case the settlement between the parties even in the case of Hindu Marriage Act may also be adversely effected. ( 12. ) THEREFORE, in view of the judgment laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (supra), the petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 234/2006 pending in the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Indore are hereby quashed.