Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 263 (UTT)

PUSHKAR SINGH RAWAT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-05-22

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate, present for the applicants. 2. Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General, learned Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent no.1. 3. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, present for the respondent no.2. 4. Marriage of petitioner no.1 with respondent no.2 was solemnized in the year 2008 as per the Hindu rites and ceremony. Thereafter matrimonial dispute arose between the two. Respondent no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. on 08.02.2014, under Sections 498A/323 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed. After taking the cognizance, summons were issued by the learned Magistrate to the applicants. These proceedings have been challenged by means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Today, the wife, respondent no.2 is being represented by Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. Both the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are present before this Court in person. Respondent no.2 has also filed an affidavit stating that due to some misunderstanding matrimonial dispute arose and an F.I.R. was lodged against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. However, during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, they have reconciled and now both husband and wife have resolved all their disputes and are presently living in their matrimonial house at Haldwani. 6. Both the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are present before this Court and have affirmed in person that they have resolved their dispute and they do not want to continue the criminal proceedings any further. Since the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable offence, they have filed an application for compounding the offence with the prayer for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Respondent no.2 has made following averments in paragraph nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the affidavit:- “6.That since the criminal proceeding is an outcome of matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife in the course of misunderstanding they were made to understand. Some elderly persons of the society and family have succeeded to make the husband and wife understand and bury their differences. 7. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the affidavit:- “6.That since the criminal proceeding is an outcome of matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife in the course of misunderstanding they were made to understand. Some elderly persons of the society and family have succeeded to make the husband and wife understand and bury their differences. 7. That now the differences between the husband and wife have been completely wiped out and they have decided to continue with matrimonial life without any complaint with an undertaking to discharge matrimonial obligation without fail and at the same time they have also decided to withdraw all the pending litigations against each other, by taking appropriate legal aid. 8. That since the present criminal proceeding is an outcome of matrimonial dispute and the parties to the dispute have buried their differences with a further condition that the pending litigation would be withdrawn therefore the applicants and complaint have filed compounding application invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking compounding of offences under the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 9. That the compounding application has been duly supported by a affidavits on behalf of applicants and complainants. However, on 15.05.2015 when the application was heard by this Hon’ble Court, it was pointed out that a separate affidavit of the complainant should have been filed to support the compounding application, hence the deponent craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to file this affidavit in the shape of counter affidavit, reiterating the averments made in the earlier application. 10. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application by accepting the affidavit on record as a part of pleading and the pending petition and compounding application may be decided accordingly inasmuch as no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the criminal proceedings pending against the applicants.” 7. Considering the fact that the root cause of the matter is a matrimonial dispute which has now been resolved, no fruitful purpose will be solved in continuing the criminal proceedings, therefore, it is a case where inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked, particularly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , wherein in the similar matter the Hon’ble Apex Court has stated as under:- “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 are 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.” 8. It was stated that the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must take into consideration whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Thereafter, in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment, following was the view of Hon’ble Apex Court that the inherent power to quash proceedings are not limited to only compoundable offences. Paragraphs 14 and 15 reads as under:- “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from setting earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from setting earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold 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.” 9. It is the view of this Court that in this case continuance of criminal proceedings is nothing but an exercise of futility, where continuance of the criminal proceedings will not only be an undue harassment to both the parties. 10. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1611 of 2014 (State Vs. Pushkar Singh Rawat and others), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani District Nainital, which arose out of F.I.R. No.71 of 2014, under Sections 498A/323 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital are hereby quashed.