Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 127 (MP)

BHAVUK SHARMA v. ANJU SHARMA

2010-01-29

PIYUSH MATHUR

body2010
Judgment Piyush Mathur, J. ( 1. ) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed in relation to an Order passed on Date 23.12.2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 6902/2007 pending before the Court, which arose from Crime No. 15/2007 registered by the Police Station (Mahila Thana), Padav under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. ( 2. ) The Petitioners Bhavuk Sharma, Smt. Mohini Sharma and Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma are facing a Criminal Trial before the Competent Court in relation to registration of the offence against them, who had entered into a compromise with the complainant Smt. Anju Sharma (who was married with the petitioner Bhavuk Sharma on Date 07.07.2003) that their matrimonial dispute and other disputes have been mutually compromised. An application was moved under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC in the criminal case No. 6902/2007, whereby the petitioners have prayed to the Court, that the offence registered under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act may be compounded, however, the Learned Court below, while finding the offence under Section 498- A to be non-compoundable had dismissed the application vide Order Dated 23.12.2009. ( 3. ) The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the Judgment Dated 06.01.2010 passed in Case No. 38/2008/Hindu Marriage Act, by the IVth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, where on the basis of the compromise, entered into between the husband and wife, a decree of divorce has been granted in terms of Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, wherein the fact of complete compromise of Civil and Criminal Liability was disclosed before the Family Court. ( 4. ) Petitioners have also submitted an independent application herein containing the terms of compromise, in terms of Section 302(2) of Cr.P.C by subscribing their affidavits to substantiate the fact of mutual compromise, which demonstrates that the civil and criminal dispute subsisting initially between the husband and the wife have been compromised and no dispute exists between them. The judgment of family Court, whereby the decree of divorce had been granted to the husband and the wife also disclose the fact of payment of Rs. 8.50 Lacs to the wife as also to the daughter, whereafter no dispute subsists between the parties. ( 5. The judgment of family Court, whereby the decree of divorce had been granted to the husband and the wife also disclose the fact of payment of Rs. 8.50 Lacs to the wife as also to the daughter, whereafter no dispute subsists between the parties. ( 5. ) Shri Neeraj Kalgore, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Manjula Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Shri Mukund Bhardwaj, appearing on behalf of State/respondent No.2 have made their submissions about the scope of the powers of the High Court in ordering for compounding of the offence as also for quashment of the proceedings before the Criminal Court, in view of the compromise arrived at between the Litigant Parties. I have carefully examined the documents placed on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. ( 6. ) The Honble Supreme Court while examining the scope of the inherent powers available under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, in relation to the compounding of the matrimonial dispute has observed in the case of B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 that the matrimonial matters could be compromised with a view to encourage genuine settlements of the disputes. The relevant paragraphs 11 and 14 are quoted herein below; "11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre it was held that while exercising inherent 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, chances 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 identity of the Husband and Wife, as also the other petitioners have been properly certified by their respective Counsels appearing before this Court and terms of the affidavit have also been verified by the Husband and Wife, while remaining present before this Court and stating about the contents of the affidavit. ( 13. ( 12. ) The identity of the Husband and Wife, as also the other petitioners have been properly certified by their respective Counsels appearing before this Court and terms of the affidavit have also been verified by the Husband and Wife, while remaining present before this Court and stating about the contents of the affidavit. ( 13. ) Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court as also in view of the compromise entered into between both the parties, this Court has no hesitation in compounding the offence registered against the present petitioners at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Padav in Crime No. 15/07 under Section 498-A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as also the Criminal Case No. 6907/07, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. ( 14. ) Therefore, this petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the Petitioners before the Criminal Court in Case No.6907/2007 are quashed. Petition allowed.