Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1092 (JHR)

Archna Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2008-09-09

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prashant Shekhar Prasad, learned counsel for O.P. NO.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The interlocutory application, jointly filed by the petitioners as well as O.P. NO.2, has been placed for orders wherein the prayer has been made to quash the criminal prosecution against the petitioners in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. In the main application for quashing, the petitioners have prayed to quash the order taking cognizance dated 26.9.2006 as well as the whole complaint case No. 757 of 2005 in which the cognizance was taken by the learned court below for the offences under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC against the petitioners. 4. Some relevant facts leading to the present application are as follows:- The marriage between petitioner no. 1 Archana Devi and O.P. NO.2 Dinesh Pal was solemnized on 26.5.2003. The matrimonial dispute between them gave rise to four cases. Firstly, Matrimonial Suit No. 171/2005, filed by Dinesh Pal (the husband) against his wife Archaila Devi for restitution of conjugal right, which is pending before the Family Court, Ranchi. Secondly, Misc. C8se No. 70/2005, filed by the wife Archana Devi against her husband for maintenance, in which the Family Court directed the husband to pay maintenance to his wife. Thirdly, Complaint Case No. 715/2004, filed by the wife against her husband and his family members for the offence under Section 498A IPC, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi and the last case being Complaint Case No. 757/2005, from which the present quashing application arises. 5. Now, a joint interlocutory application has been filed by and on behalf of the petitioners as well as by O.P. NO.2, the complainant, wherein it has been stated that due to intervention of common friends and relatives, both the parties have decided to settled their dispute and pursuant thereto they have settled their claims and dispute outside the Court on certain terms and conditions as stated in Para-4 of the interlocutory application, which are reproduced herein below:- (i) Archana Devi (Wife) and Dinesh Pal (Husband) have decided finally for living separately/legal separation. Therefore, they have decided and agree to file a joint petition in M.T.S. Case No. 171/2005/28/2005 for decree of divorce with mutual consent. Therefore, they have decided and agree to file a joint petition in M.T.S. Case No. 171/2005/28/2005 for decree of divorce with mutual consent. (ii) Archana Devi has decided and agree not to claim any maintenance including claim in view of the order dated 30.5.2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 70/2005 passed by Family Court, Ranchi by which direction has been given to husband to pay maintenance allowance to his wife. (iii) Both the parties have decided to withdraw all the criminal cases filed by them against the each others. In other words Archana Devi will withdraw criminal case bearing Complaint Case No. 715/2004 filed by her against her husband Dinesh Pal and his family members. Similarly Sri Ram Yad Pal, father-in-law of Archana Devi will withdraw the complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 757/2005 filed by him against the petitioners of present Cr. M.P. No. 195/2007. (iv) The terms of compromise stated above are final and henceforth, no party will have any claim against each others in future in relation to dispute stated above. 6. It is also stated that they have settled their dispute out of their own will and without any pressure. 7. In a similar circumstances, this Court allowed such interlocutory application and quashed the criminal case, which also arose out of the matrimonial dispute, by order dated 4.9.2008 in Cr. M.P. No. 779/2007, relying on the cases of the Supreme Court, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 , (1988)1 SCC 692 and (2008)4 SCC 582 . 8. Since the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and, therefore, . in my view, it is the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 9. In this view of the matter, this interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1764 of 2008) as well as the main quashing application are hereby allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 26.9.2006 as well as the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners being Complaint Case No. 757/2007 are hereby quashed.