Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 654 (JHR)

Ombrish Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-04-29

R.R.PRASAD

body2009
Order Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1289 of 2004, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur including order dated 11.3.2005 under which cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, has been taken against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the complainant! respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint, alleging therein that the petitioner no. 1, being the husband and other members of the in-law's family, subjected her to cruelty, on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of the dowry. After the statement of the complainant .was recorded on solemn affirmation, the matter was taken up for inquiry and thereupon cognizance of the, offence was taken under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. That order was challenged before this Court. However, while the matter was pending before this Court, parties got their matrimonial dispute settled on certain terms whereby, the petitioners were required to make payment of certain amounts and both the parties agreed to have decree of divorce on mutual consent and thereupon, a petition was filed before Family Court, Jamshedpur wherein decree of divorce has been granted, on mutual consent and now the parties have been living separately and, therefore, the complainant now does not want to proceed with the case and, therefore, entire criminal proceeding as well as order taking cognizance be quashed in view of the ratio laid down in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, and Anr. [2003(2) East CLC. 220(SC)]. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that pursuant to settlement of dispute on certain terms and conditions, parties are now living separately and hence, the complainant does not want to proceed with the complaint case. 5. It be stated that offence under Section 498A is non-compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but there would be no bar of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to quash entire criminal proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the ends of justice particularly when matrimonial dispute has been settled. 6. In this regard case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and another (supra) be referred to wherein it has been observed as hereunder:- "There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent 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 counterproductive 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 XX-A of the Indian Penal Code." 7. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute and in that event the complainant does not want to proceed with the criminal case, entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1289 of 2004 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, including order dated 11.3.2005 is, hereby, quashed. 8. In the result, this petition is allowed.