Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 401 (MP)

Sanjay Sharma v. State of M. P.

2011-03-30

M.A.SIDDIQUI

body2011
JUDGMENT : (1) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1234/06 pending in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. This petition has been filed after framing of the charges. (2) Undisputedly, this is the second petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. First M.Cr.C. No. 11035/2006 was dismissed by this Court on 26.03.08. (3) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are the members of joint hindu family. Petitioner no.1 was married to respondent no.2 Smt. Tanu Sharma on 20.04.03. It is alleged that from the very beginning she started fighting with her mother-in-law Smt. Shakuntala Sharma (now dead) for residing separately, for which she was accommodated and family was shifted to E/1, Arera Colony, Bhopal, still respondent no.2 was not satisfied and she started raising disputes and thereafter left the matrimonial house and started living at Chhatarpur, she pressurized petitioner no.1/husband to live at Chhatarpur. Petitioner no.2 is the elder brother of petitioner no.1 (Jeth of respondent no.2), and petitioner no.3 is the wife of petitioner no.2 (Jethani of respondent no.2) and petitioner no.4 is sister-in-law (Nand of respondent no.2), all were living separately. Respondent no.2 lodged the report and case under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the petitioners which is pending consideration in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal. In the meanwhile, respondent no.2 entered into a compromise and the matrimonial matter was settled. (4) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in the matrimonial case, respondent no.2 was examined on 15.01.09 in which she asserted that there was no chance of any joint living so she has filed joint application for divorce in which she has also narrated that no dispute remains there and all disputes have been settled out of Court, and in future nobody will take any action against each other. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that from the statement of respondent no.2 it should be drawn that this matter of 498-A IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has also been settled as such the proceedings may be quashed. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that from the statement of respondent no.2 it should be drawn that this matter of 498-A IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has also been settled as such the proceedings may be quashed. (5) Learned counsel for respondent no.2 objects, he has submitted that the matter of matrimonial dispute was settled and for future it was agreed that no action will be taken, but the FIR was lodged in this case in March, 2004, and had there been some compromise in this matter, then it would have been agreed separately, the compromise was for matrimonial case only. Counsel for respondent no.2 submits that earlier petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed so new petition is barred because learned counsel for the applicants did not take any care to revive that petition. (6) Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others 2005 SCC (Cri.) 719 in which it has been held that if there is some compromise in writing and subsequently if any party disputes the compromise, then it cannot be permitted and in such a case the proceedings should be quashed and the same have been quashed by Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the above case law does not apply to the facts of the instant case. Here, no compromise took place for the criminal case referred above. I do agree with the submission raised by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that no compromise took place between the parties regarding the present case. (7) Learned counsel has further placed reliance on a decision of Single Bench of this Court in Sanjay Anand vs. State of M.P. 2006 (1) MPWN Note No. 98 in which it has been held that a criminal case under S.498-A IPC and Ss.3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, though not compoundable, but this Court can quash FIR, complaint and proceedings in interest of justice. There is no dispute with the aforesaid case law, but in the case in hand, no compromise took place between the parties. (8) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that according to case law of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the proceedings may be quashed. There is no dispute with the aforesaid case law, but in the case in hand, no compromise took place between the parties. (8) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that according to case law of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the proceedings may be quashed. (9) It cannot be disputed that by invoking the extra ordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the proceedings in non-compoundable case under Section 498-A IPC can be quashed, but for that there should be some specific compromise between the parties. Here in the case in hand, learned counsel for petitioners want that from the compromise entered in the matrimonial case, it should be drawn that this matter has also been compromised, but that is not true. For every case, there should be specific compromise. Since respondent no.2 is categorically objecting for any compromise in this case, so the proceedings in aforesaid Criminal Case No. 1234/06 cannot be quashed. (10) So, looking to the above circumstances of the case, I find no ground to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 Cr.P.C. Petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.