Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 26 (MP)

Sanjay Anand v. State of M. P.

2006-01-03

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2006
JUDGMENT Petitioners, who are accused in Crime No. 48/99, registered against them under section 498-A IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have challenged the criminal proceedings and their conviction recorded by the trial Court, i.e., the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur, in Criminal Case No. 1578/01 on 29.5.2003 on the ground that they have compromised the matter with respondent No.2 Smt. Swapna Anand who was married to petitioner No.1, .viz., S'anjay Anand on 11.12.1996. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Swapna Anand was married to Sanjay Anand on 11.12.1996 according to Hindu rites. Though initially there was no demand of dowry but after some time the accused persons started demanding Rs. 50,000/- and other articles by way of dowry resultantly the relations between husband and wife became strained. Ultimately, respondent Swapna was constrained to lodge the report with the Mahila Police Jabalpur. On her report a case under section 498-A IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur. On the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the petitioners/accused persons were convicted under section 498-A IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. All the accused were sentenced to RI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 100/- each under section 498-A IPC and RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 100/- under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Both sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by their conviction, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, which presently is pending as Criminal Appeal No. 145/03 in the Court of XIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. During the pendency of aforesaid appeal, the petitioners and respondent Swapna Anand patched up their differences and resolved their dispute amicably and petitioner No.1 and respondent decided to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Acting in that direction both the parties recorded a compromise (Annexure P-3) and filed before the appellate Court. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that since the offences under section 498-A IPC as well as under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were not compoundable, the learned appellate Court refused to record the compromise. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 CrPC. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that since the offences under section 498-A IPC as well as under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were not compoundable, the learned appellate Court refused to record the compromise. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 CrPC. Petitioner Sanjay Anand and respondent Swapna Anand are present in person before this Court. They admitted that they have entered into a compromise (Annexure P-3) and they admitted their signatures on the same. According to the terms of compromise. respondent Swapna has agreed that criminal proceedings against the petitioners be quashed. She has admitted that they have filed a petition before the Family Court, Jabalpur under section 13-8 of the Hindu Marriage Act for obtaining a decree for divorce by mutual consent, which is pending as Civil Suit No. 239-A/04. Certified copy of the order-sheet dated 22.7.2005 (Annexure P-4) has also been produced before this Court. As per terms of the compromise, there is now no dispute between the two parties and on decree of mutual divorce being passed, they will be free to marry again with the· person whom they like. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on the law laid down by the apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386 , wherein it has been held: "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 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 women from setting earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code. 15. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from setting 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." Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2005 (1) MPU 177 (Kamlakar v. State of M.P.). On perusal of the compromise Annexure P-3, order sheets of Civil Suit No. 239-A/04 (Annexure P-4) and on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am satisfied that both the parties have voluntarily entered into compromise due to complete normalization on their lives. It is right that the offences involved in the present case are not compoundable therefore, the permission to compound the offence cannot be given. However, in view of the law settled by the apex Court, in the interests of the parties concerned and for securing the ends of justice, criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners deserve to be quashed by this Court under the inherent power. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, judgment dated 29.5.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur, in Criminal Case No. 1578/01, recording conviction of the petitioners under section 498-A IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the sentences passed are set aside and criminal proceedings with respect to aforesaid offences are quashed.