Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 764 (JHR)

Kapildeo Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

2010-07-30

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that due to some mis-understanding with the Meera Devi wife of the petitioner-Arun Kumar Dubey @ Arun Kumar Dwivedi a complaint was filed by his father-in-law Ram Dahin Tiwari alleging that his daughter-Meera Devi was married with one of the petitioners-Arun Kumar Dubey @ Arun Kumar Dwivedi in the year 1994. After marriage, her husband demanded Rs. 50,0001- as additional dowry and since he is not prepared to fulfill the demand they are torturing his daughter and also they are giving threat of murder of his daughter. He also alleged that on inquiry he came to know that his daughter has been assaulted by her husband and in-laws and accordingly the complaint was filed which was subsequently sent to police to register it as F.I.R. Then the same was registered as per Garhwa P.S. Case No. 91 of 2008 under Sections 323/307/436/498A/34 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. After investigation it appears that the police submitted charge-sheet only against the husband-Arun Kumar Dubey @ Arun Kumar Dwivedi under Sections 306/494 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa took the cognizance against all the accused persons under Sections 307/498A306/494/120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the parties have compromised the matter and presently the victim lady is living in the house of the petitioners and she has also given birth to a child from the marriage. In that view of the matter, the prosecution which is pending in the court below may be quashed in the light of the judgment reported in 2003(2) East.Cr.C. 220(SC) case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Am. where it has been held that although offences under Sections 498 & 406 are non-compoundable but in certain condition ultimately when there is no chance of conviction and the parties want to compound the case the Court may quash the proceeding. 4. vs. State of Haryana & Am. where it has been held that although offences under Sections 498 & 406 are non-compoundable but in certain condition ultimately when there is no chance of conviction and the parties want to compound the case the Court may quash the proceeding. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since now parties have compromised the matter and when the victim lady is living in the house of the petitioners and leading a happy matrimonial life, the continuation of proceeding may be stopped by the Court and the same is fit to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the Supreme Court has given extraordinary power in the circumstances which can be considered only by the Court to the satisfaction. 6. After hearing both the parties and after considering the situation of the case of the victim lady-Meera Devi alongwith her husband-Arun Kumar Dubey @ Arun Kumar Dwivedi, her father the informantcomplainant are present in Court and they have submitted that now they have got no grievance against the petitioners and Meera Devi is leading very happy matrimonial life in the house of the petitioners and the petitioners also present in Court admitted that as per compromise now they will keep the wife of Arun Kumar Dubey @ Arun Kumar Dwivedi with all respect and they will never cause any torture or inconvenience to her. 7. It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. VS. State of Haryana (supra) in Para-10 of its judgment considering the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others (1988)1 SCC 692 where it has been 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 is 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."and finally came to the conclusion at Para 14 that:-"In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code." 8. In view of the principles as discussed above and in view of the information in the instant case since the victim lady-Meera Devi who is present in Court with her husband admitted that she is living happily in the house of the petitioners and the petitioners have also assured that they will keep her with all respect and they will never cause any torture or inconvenience to her. In that view of the matter, continuation of the proceeding will be only abuse the process of the Court and waste of Court's precious time. Accordingly, entire criminal prosecution arises out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 91 of 2008 and the cognizance taken in the said case bearing G.R. Case No. 406 of 2008 dated 27.1.2009 are quashed and this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.