Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 410 (MP)

Ashok @ Bhim v. State of M. P.

2013-03-25

U.C.Maheshwari

body2013
ORDER 1. The applicants/accused have preferred this petition under section 482 of CrPC against the order dated 23.11.2012 passed by JMFC Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 2588/2007 dismissing the joint application of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 filed for compounding the offence with a prayer of quashment of the FIR registered as Crime No. 329/2004 against the applicants at PS Gorakhpur, Jabalpur on 29.4.2004 for the offence under section 498A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In addition to the aforesaid the prayer for quashment of the entire charge sheet filed by the aforesaid Police Station after holding investigation before the JMFC Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 2588/07 to prosecute the applicant under the above mentioned sections is also made. 2. The respondent No. 2 got married with the applicant No. 1 on 19.2.2003 at Jabalpur. Subsequent to that on account of some matrimonial dispute between them the respondent No. 2 lodged the above mentioned FIR against the applicant, on which after holding investigation the charge sheet was filed against them. Besides this, proceeding under section 125 of CrPC was also filed in the Family Court, Jabalpur. Apart the aforesaid Case No. 52A/07 was also filed by the applicant No. 1 against the respondent No. 2 for divorce under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion and cruelty. 3. In pendency of all the cases some amicable settlement has taken place between the applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2. According to which with mutual consent and the signature of the applicant No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 divorce petition has been filed before the Family Court Jabalpur and same has been registered as Case No. 96A/2013. In such case after holding initial proceeding the same has been posted after six months to finalize the same. 4. After filing the aforesaid petition for mutual divorce with the signature of the applicant as well as respondent No. 2 an application under section 320 (1) (ii) of CrPC to compound the above mentioned offence along with an application permitting the respondent No. 2 to compond the offence was filed in the trial Court. 4. After filing the aforesaid petition for mutual divorce with the signature of the applicant as well as respondent No. 2 an application under section 320 (1) (ii) of CrPC to compound the above mentioned offence along with an application permitting the respondent No. 2 to compond the offence was filed in the trial Court. On consideration such applications were dismissed by the trial Court by holding that above mentionedoffence of section 498A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not made compoundable under the provision of Criminal Procedure Code, on which the applicants have come to this Court with this petition. 5. After perusing the aforesaid applications, compromise (Ann. P.3 and P.4), as well as agreement which had taken place between the applicant and respondent No. 2, I deem fit to verify the facts stated therein regarding their amicable settlement. 6. On asking the respondent No. 2 in this regard she fairly stated that after settling each and every dispute with applicant No. 1 and other family members she had signed and filed the aforesaid petition for divorce with mutual consent, so also the impugned application Ann. P.3 and P.4 to close and wind-up the criminal case against the applicants. She further stated that she entered into compromise voluntarily and without undue influence from any source and prayed to dispose of the impugned criminal case of section 498A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending against the applicants. 7. On asking the applicants in this regard, they have categorically stated that in the light of the compromise by allowing this petition the impugned case be quashed. Besides this the applicant No. 1 has specifically accepted that he with the joint signature of the respondent No. 2 has filed the petition for divorce with mutual consent in the District Court and in such premises respondent No. 2 has entered into impugned compromise. 8. Besides this the applicant No. 1 has specifically accepted that he with the joint signature of the respondent No. 2 has filed the petition for divorce with mutual consent in the District Court and in such premises respondent No. 2 has entered into impugned compromise. 8. On aforesaid verification the alleged compromise appears to be bonafide and genuine, so in the walfare of the applicant No. 1 and his family members as well as of the respondent No. 2, I deem fit to allow this compromise to facilitate the applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 to move their future life according to their own way because in the available circumstances there is no possibility between them to live together, as such divorce petition with mutual consent has already been filed and other disputes have also been settled by them. 9. So far the impugned order of the trial Court is concerned, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any error because under the law above mentioned offences have not been made compoundable and the trial Court in the lack of any inherent power could not accept and allow such applications but in view of law laid down by the apex Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi v State of Harnaya reported in 2003 (1) MPWN 145 this Court has jurisdiction to quash the proceeding of criminal case by invoking the inherent power enumerated under section 482 of CrPC. 10. Therefore, in the above mentioned scenario under section 482 of CrPC the impugned FIR along with its entire investigation as well as the charge sheet and the aforesaid pending trial of the case before the JMFC are hereby quashed. Pursuant to it, the applicants are set at liberty from the impugned case. It is further observed that they will be entitled to get the benefit which is available under the law to the acquitted accused of the criminal case after allowing the compromise of the parties. 11. The petition is disposed of as indicated above. 12. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court.