Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1251 (GAU)

Badana Begum (Musstt. ) v. State of Assam

2012-11-08

C.R.SARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. By this joint application, filed under Section 482 read with Section 320 Cr. P.C. the informant (petitioner No. 1) and the accused persons, petitioner No. 2 (husband of the informant), petitioner No. 3 (brother-in-law of the informant) and petitioner No. 4 (sister-in-law of the informant) have prayed for quashing the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 979/2010 (Hojai P.S. Case No. 241/2010) under Section 498(A) IPC, pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, in the District of Nagaon, Assam. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the informant and the accused persons have amicably settled the matter and that the informant and her husband i.e. petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are peacefully living together, as husband and wife. The said wife-petitioner No. 1 initiated a proceeding under Section 498(A) IPC against her husband (petitioner No. 2), her brother-in-law (petitioner No. 3) and her sister-in-law (petitioner No. 4). It is submitted that the parties have amicably settled the matter and that there is no dispute among them. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, as the petitioners have been peacefully living together, continuance of this proceeding will adversely affect the family life of the petitioners and as such the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the cases of Rajiv Saxena & other vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & another reported in (2012) 3 SCC (Cri.) 327 and Arun Ch. Bora vs. State of Assam, reported in 2001 (1) GUI 275 (Crl. Revision Petition No. 427 of 1997, decided on January, 2, 2001). 2. In the case of Rajiv Saxena and others (Supra), the Supreme Court, in a case under Sections 498(A)/496 read with Section 34 IPC allowed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the parties have mutually settled the matter. In the case of Arun Ch. Bora (Supra), a learned single Judge of this Court, referring to the case of Mahesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2111 , observed as follows:- (12). Now, the question is whether the offence under Section 498(A) can be compounded under the provisions of Section 320 Cr. In the case of Arun Ch. Bora (Supra), a learned single Judge of this Court, referring to the case of Mahesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2111 , observed as follows:- (12). Now, the question is whether the offence under Section 498(A) can be compounded under the provisions of Section 320 Cr. P.C. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that Section 498(A) IPC can be allowed to be compounded though it is not a compoundable offence. Supporting his argument, Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on various decision of the Apex Court as well as this Court. (13). In Mahesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2111 , the Apex Court held that in a special case the offence which is not compoundable under the law can be permitted to be compromised. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is quoted as under:- "2. The accused were acquitted by the trial court, but they were convicted by the High court for the offence under Section 307 IPC. This offence is not compoundable under law. The parties, however, want to treat it a special case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is said and indeed not disputed that one of the accused is a lawyer practicing in the lower Court. There is a counter case arising out of the same transaction. It is said that the case has already been compromised. The decision of this Court in Suresh Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1987) 2 JT 361 has been also in support of the plea for permission to compound the offence. 3. We gave our anxious consideration to the and also the plea put forward for sitting permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial Court shall permit them to compound the offence." (14). The ratio of Mahe Chand's case (supra) was accepted in Saraswati Sutradhar vs. State of Tripura, reported in 1998 (3) GLJ 81 (Also in (1999) 1 GLR-94): 1998 (3) GLT 466 in a decision of this Court. This case relates to Section 498-A IPC. It was held in the said case that the prayer for composition can be accepted in an offence under Section 498(A) IPC. This case relates to Section 498-A IPC. It was held in the said case that the prayer for composition can be accepted in an offence under Section 498(A) IPC. Having regard to the above mentioned judicial decisions, and submission of the learned counsel of the parties, I am of the view that the ratio of those decisions is also applicable to the case in hand. In the case at hand, it appears that though the offence under Section 498(A) IPC is not compoundable, the parties, including the husband and the wife i.e. the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have amicably settled their dispute and they have been enjoying a peaceful family life. Therefore, continuance of the said proceeding will not yield any fruitful result, rather it may adversely affect the family life of the petitioners. Therefore, ends of justice demands closure of the case aforementioned. In view of the above decisions and the principles laid down thereon and considering the entire aspect of the matter, I find it to be fit case to allow the prayer for quashing the proceeding. Accordingly, the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 979 of 2010 (Hojai P.S. Case No. 241 of 2010) under Section 498(A) IPC, pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar is quashed. The criminal petition is allowed. Petition allowed.