Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 89 (GAU)

Arun Mandal v. State of Assam

2014-01-23

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2014
JUDGMENT A.K. Goswami, J. 1. By filing this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short, the Code, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the proceeding in GR Case No. 5035/2004 arising out of Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 447/2004 under Section 498(A)/34 IPC pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (I)(S), Kamrup, Guwahati on the ground that the dispute between the parties have been amicably sorted out. The marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 17.6.2004 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, parties were living in Maligaon, Guwahati. An ejahar was lodged on 5.11.2004, which had given rise to Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 447/2004. 2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner No. 1 and his father Naval Kishore Mandal on 28.4.2006 under section 498(A) IPC showing petitioner No. 1 as absconder. Subsequently, the petitioner No. 2, who is the mother of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3, who is the married sister of petitioner No. 1, were impleaded as accused persons by the trial court. It appears that Naval Kishore Mandal had expired in the meantime. 3. Meanwhile, well wishers of the couple had intervened and tried to enable the parties to reach a compromise and such attempts bore fruit and finally, disputes and differences had been settled and compromised with the result that the respondent No. 2 withdrew a complaint case before the CAW Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi as also a petition under section 125 Cr. P.C. from the Court of Judge, Family Courts, Saket, New Delhi and a petition under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. Decree of divorce was also granted under section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by order dated 27.3.2012, by the Judge, Family Courts, Saket, New Delhi in H.M. A. petition No. 188/2012. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 2 had remarried and one female child was born out of the said marriage. The petitioner No. 1 had also paid the agreed amount of Rs. 5 lakhs towards full and final settlement of the claims including maintenance, permanent alimony, dowry articles and stridhan. 4. I have heard Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.B. Siddique, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 5. 5 lakhs towards full and final settlement of the claims including maintenance, permanent alimony, dowry articles and stridhan. 4. I have heard Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.B. Siddique, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 5. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as the parties have compromised the matter and have moved on in life, this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code for securing ends of justice and that the law is well settled that though the offence under Section 498A is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, the same does not limit powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. It is also submitted by him that continuance of the proceedings will not serve any useful purpose. 6. Mr. A.B. Siddique, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, he has been instructed not to oppose this application. He also drew the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 indicating that because of the compromise arrived at with the petitioner No. 1, she does not want to pursue G.R. Case No. 5035/2004 and will have no objection if the proceeding in the said case is quashed. 7. Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam has also submitted that as the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, this Court may, for ends of justice, quash the entire proceeding in GR Case No. 5035/2004. 8. In B.S. Joshi & Others v. State of Haryana & Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Apex Court held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the Code. In Shiji @ Pappu & Others v. Radhika & Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705 , the Apex Court, while reiterating that merely because an offence is not compoundable under section 320 of the Code, is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code, which power must be exercised with utmost care and caution. It was emphasized that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise the power may result in the abuse of the process of law. Taking note of the incident in question giving rise to registration of a case under Section 354/394 I.P.C., which was sought to be quashed, it was held that incident in question had its genesis in civil dispute between the parties, which dispute had, it appeared, been resolved by them, and accordingly, the Apex Court had quashed the charge-sheet. 9. In Dimpey Gujral v. Union Territory Through Administrator, V.T. Chandigarh, 2013 CRI. L.J. 520, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the Apex Court quashed the FIR in question registered under Sections 147/148/149/323/307/452/506 I.P.C. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the final report presented under section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the Trial Court. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58 , the Apex Court had laid down that it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes and if the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, for the purpose of securing ends of justice, section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or subsequent criminal proceedings. 10. The allegations made in the FIR in the instant case show that the offence alleged does not depict gross depravity. The parties have also obtained their divorce by mutual consent. 11. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the light of the discussions aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings in the trial court and as such by invoking the powers under section 482 of the Code, I quash the entire proceedings in GR Case No. 5035/2004 arising out of Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 447/2004 under Section 498(A)/34 IPC pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (I)(S), Kamrup, Guwahati. The criminal petition, accordingly, stands allowed and disposed of. Petition allowed.