Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2257 (ALL)

INDRA JEET SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2008-11-12

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2008
JUDGMENT RAVINDRA SINGH, J.-Heard Sri Virendra Singh, Sri Bharat Kishore Srivastava, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, Sri Sunil Kumar Pathak, Sri Ramesh Kumar Ojha, Sri S.P. Singh Parmar and Sri O.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri V.K. Jaiswal and Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Counsel for O.P. No.2. 2. This application has been filed by the applicants Indra Jeet Singh Rathore, Gurubachan Singh Rathore, Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and Dinesh Rathore with a prayer to quash the proceedings of complaint case No. 4206 of 2003 under sections 406, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC read with section 3 and 4 D.P. Act, P.s. Sihani Gate pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Ghaziabad. 3. The facts in brief of this case are that O.P. No. 2 Smt. Sonal Rathore had lodged the complaint dated 24.4.2003 in the Court of learned CJ.M., Ghaziabad, thereafter her statement has been recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C and the statement of other witnesses Ajai Khaneja and Smt. Lalita Arora have been recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C, after considering the complaint and statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C the learned CJ.M., Ghaziabad has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicants on 7.6.2003 for facing the trial under sections 406, 498A, 504, 506 IPC and section 3 & 4 D.P. Act. 4. Being aggrieved from the order dated 7.6.2003, the present application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the proceedings of the complaint case No. 4206 of 2003 pending in the Court of learned C.J.M. Ghaziabad. 5. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the applicants and O.P. No.2 that both the parties have entered into compromise, they have settled their dispute out side the Court and they have decided to live separately. On the ground of terms and conditions the suit No. 1057 of 2007 filed by G.P. No.2 under section 13(B) Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed vide order dated 20.1.2008. Both the parties have decided to live separately to lead their life independently, therefore, the proceedings of the present case may be quashed. So that both the parties may lead their peaceful life in view of case of B.S. Joshi and another v. State of Haryana and another. 6. Both the parties have decided to live separately to lead their life independently, therefore, the proceedings of the present case may be quashed. So that both the parties may lead their peaceful life in view of case of B.S. Joshi and another v. State of Haryana and another. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2 and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the G.P. No. 2 was married with applicant Indra Jeet Singh. There is dispute between husband and wife, consequently complaint of the present case has been lodge and G.P. No.2 filed a suit under section 13(B) Hindu Marriage Act, thereafter they made an agreement to live separately and not to proceed further in the case because suit filed by G.P. No.2 under section 13(B) Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed by learned Civil Judge (S.D), Ghaziabad dated 20.1.2008. In such circumstances, in view of B.S. Joshi and another, it is proper to quash the proceeding against applicants, so that the G.P. No.2 and applicant Indra Jeet Singh Rathore may lead their life independently without any disturbance of litigation. This issue has been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and another, the relevant paragraphs read as under; 7. In such circumstances the Supreme Court's decision in the case of B.S. Joshi and another v. State of Haryana and another/in which similar circumstances have been considered which read as under: "9. The High Court has also relied upon the decision in case of Surendra Nath Mohanty case for the proposition that offence declared to be non-compoundable cannot be compounded at all even with the permission of the Court. That is of course so. The offences which can be compounded are mentioned in section 320. Those offences which are not mentioned therein cannot be permitted to be compounded. In Mohal1ty case the appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for offence under section 307. The High Court altered the conviction of the appellants and convicted them for offence under section 326 and imposed sentence of six months. The Trial Court had sentenced the appellants for a period of five years' RI. The application for compounding was, however, dismissed by the High Court. The High Court altered the conviction of the appellants and convicted them for offence under section 326 and imposed sentence of six months. The Trial Court had sentenced the appellants for a period of five years' RI. The application for compounding was, however, dismissed by the High Court. This Court holding that the offence for which the appellants had been convicted was non-compoundable and, therefore, it could not be permitted to be compounded but considering that the parties had settled their dispute outside the Court, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. It is, however, to be borne in mind that in the present case the appellants had not sought compounding of the offences. They had approached the Court seeking quashing of FIR under the circumstances abovestated. 10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature; This Curt said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provisioI1s which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR ,was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR ,was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or falls to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the "negative" It would, however, be a different matter in the High Court on fact declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bonafides. 11. In Madhavao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre It was held that while exercising in herent power of quashing under section 482, it is for the-High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, changes of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, - no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. 12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G. V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the Courts. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G. V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the Courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. 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. 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 the parties lose their "Young" days in chasing their "case" in different courts." 8. The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case, is applicable in this case also. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice the proceedings arising out of under sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and section 3 and 4 D.P. Act in complaint case No. 4206 of 2003 P.S. Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Ghaziabad are hereby quashed. Accordingly this application is allowed. Application Allowed.