Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1106 (MP)

MAHENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2006-09-15

A.K.GOHIL

body2006
ABHAY GOHIL J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are husband, brothers-in-law, in-laws and sister-in-law or the respondent No. 2 wife, have filed this petition under Section 482 of cr. P. C. against the order dated 21. 3. 2006 and for quashing the proceedings or criminal case No. 138/04 pending the Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, for the offences under Section 498a, IPC. ( 2 ) IN nutshell the case of the petitioners is that the marriage of petitioner No. 1 mahendra Singh with respondent No. 2 smt. Sunita took place on 29. 1. 2003 as per the Hindu customs and rites at Dabra. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers-in-law (Jeth and Devar), petitioner No. 4 is father-in-law and petitioner No. 5 is mother-in-law and petitioner No. 6 is sister-in-law. (Jethani) of the respondent No. 2 wife. On 18. 7. 04 the respondent No. 2 wife lodged fir at Mahila Police Station Padav, District gwalior against the petitioners that they used to harass, demand dowry, beat her and practise cruelty with her. On the basis of the report a criminal case was registered against the petitioners and after investigation challan was filed and a criminal case no. 138/04 is pending in the court of A. C. J. M. , Gwalior for the offences under Section 498a of IPC. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal case both the parties entered into compromise and they have settled their dispute outside the Court and have started living together as husband and wife and now they have no dispute between them and they both have filed separate applications under Section 320 (2) Cr. P. C. in the trial Court for permission to. record compromise and to drop the proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the compromise. Petitioners also filed an application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. for recalling the respondent No. 2 in the light of the compromise but the trial Court has not accepted the same holding that the offence under section 498a of IPC, is not compoundable under Sub-Section (2) of Section 320 of cr. P. C. and also dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. for recalling and re-cross-examination filed by the petitioners, against which petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. P. C. and also dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. for recalling and re-cross-examination filed by the petitioners, against which petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner husband and respondent wife both are present before me and they have stated on affidavit that they have settled their dispute and they have started living together. They have also promised that in future too they will live peacefully. Both the parties have filed their own affidavits and have prayed that under inherent powers compromise be accepted and charge sheet be quashed and for that placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) Crimes 284 (Sc) ( 4 ) AFTER considering the rival contention, the question for determination is whether high Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. and under the facts and circumstances of the case can quash the criminal proceedings or the FIR or the complaint regarding non-compounding offences in view of the bar created under Section 320 of Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) IN the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of haryana (supra), Supreme Court has held: "the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint regarding non-compound-able offences and Section 320 of cr. P. C. , 1973 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. " The Supreme Court after considering the decision in the case of State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 . recording the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of cr. P. C. and also the decision in the case of madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandraji-rao Angre and Ors. , 3. (1988) 1 SCC 692 . and the observations made by the Supreme court, though in a different context in G. V. Rao v. L. H. V. Prasad and Ors. 2000 3 SCC 692. in para 14 and 15 has held as under:"14. v. Sambhajirao Chandraji-rao Angre and Ors. , 3. (1988) 1 SCC 692 . and the observations made by the Supreme court, though in a different context in G. V. Rao v. L. H. V. Prasad and Ors. 2000 3 SCC 692. in para 14 and 15 has held as under:"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 punish a husband 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 woman 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 a woman from 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. " As has been held by the Supreme Court in the case cited supra that a hyper-technical view would be counter-productive and would act against the interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added and non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings would prevent a woman from settling her in the family life. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, as has been submitted by the parties that they have compromised their matrimonial dispute and they both have started living together and have also assured this Court that in future too they will live peacefully as husband and wife and looking to these special features that the wife has started living with the husband, which she has admitted before me in open Court, in such circumstances there is every likelihood that the wife will not support the complaint in the criminal case and there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offences, the contentions pleaded by the parties before this court can be accepted and complaint can be quashed. In fact under these circumstances, it prima facie appears that the trial Court has also committed illegality in not allowing the application which was filed under Section 311 Cr. P. C. for recalling and re-cross-examination with the wife under the changed circumstances. In such family disputes trial Court should understand the delicacy of the relations, that at any stage good sense may prevail upon the parties and they may enter into compromise, or withdraw the complaint, and for that they may pray for recalling and re-cross-examination of the complainant or the witnesses. Therefore, in such matters trial court should have liberal approach and normally permission should be granted and should also encourage the parties to settle their lives by resolving their disputes. Positive approach of the trial Court may bring down litigation and may be helpful in permitting them to live peacefully. The role of the Court should not be hyper-technical and counter-productive. ( 7 ) IN the background of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter as well as the decision of the Supreme Court rendered about the inherent powers of the High Court, it is clear that the High Court should also not adopt hyper-technical view in the matter which may be counter-productive and should act in the interest of the society as well as should consider the welfare of the families. If the parties have compromised outside the Court and wife has started living together with the husband as well as family members of the husband, the approach of the High Court should also be pragmatic. If the pending criminal case is not permitted to be withdrawn or allowed to continue, it may either be injurious to the family settlement of the parties or may prejudice the case of the wife. If the family wants to live peacefully and they want to settle their dispute outside the Court, they should be allowed to do so and in that case under inherent powers direction can be given to the trial Court to close the proceedings and discharge the accused persons. If not, the High Court may also quash the criminal proceedings and the F. I. R. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, I am fully satisfied that since the parties have settled their dispute, the proceedings of the criminal case should be quashed and they should be dropped. If not, the High Court may also quash the criminal proceedings and the F. I. R. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, I am fully satisfied that since the parties have settled their dispute, the proceedings of the criminal case should be quashed and they should be dropped. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior in Cri. Case No. 138/2004 under Section 498a of IPC are hereby quashed and dropped. Petition allowed. .