Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1034 (GAU)

MARJINA BIBI v. STATE OF ASSAM

2016-11-22

M.R.PATHAK

body2016
JUDGMENT : M.R. Pathak, J. Heard Mr. Mahibur Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. S.M. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. The petitioner No. 1 Miss Marjina Bibi is the wife of the petitioner No. 2 Md. Abdul Ali. Because of some personal dispute between them, the petitioner No. 1, on 20-06-2016, lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Chhaygaon Police Station alleging that in the afternoon around 04:00 pm on 19.06.2016, while she was with her daughter, her husband, the petitioner No. 2, in presence of other members of her in-laws, physically assaulted her and also demanded dowry from her and later on the same night drove her out from her matrimonial home with her son and daughter, for which she had to take shelter in her father's house. On the basis of the said FIR, Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 260/2016 (corresponding to GR Case No. 939(K)/2016), under Section 498(A) IPC was registered against the petitioner No. 2 and the other members of her in-laws. 3. Due to intervention of senior members as well as well-wishers of the victim informant petitioner No. 1 and her of her husband, petitioner No. 2, both the petitioners have settled their dispute amongst them amicably and it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 is presently living in her matrimonial home with the petitioner No. 2 happily as husband and wife. It is also submitted that as this fact has already been brought to the notice of the concerned police station, the investigation of the said police case has not yet began and the accused petitioner No. 2, husband of the victim, informant, petitioner No. 1 and the other members of her in-laws named in the said FIR have not been arrested in the said case. 4. As the differences between the victim informant petitioner No.1 of the and her husband, petitioner No. 2 have already been sorted out amicably and since they are living happily as husband and wife in the matrimonial home of the petitioner No. 1; so the said victim informant, petitioner No.1 now does not want to proceed with the said Chhaygaon PS Case No. 260/2016 against her husband petitioner No. 2 and other members of her in-laws. 5. 5. Therefore, in this criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, petitioners have prayed that the alleged accused persons of said Chhaygaon PS Case No. 260/2016, including petitioner No. 1's husband, the Petitioner No.2 should be discharged of the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and the relevant FIR dated 20.06.2016 lodged by her pertaining to said Chhaygaon PS Case should be set aside and quashed. 6. Section 498(A) IPC is a non-compoundable offence. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 have held that - the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can quash a criminal proceeding with regard to matrimonial dispute where the dispute is entirely private in nature and where the parties are willing to settle their matrimonial disputes amicably and it becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of such matrimonial disputes. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [ (1977) 4 SCC 551 ], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa and other cases have laid down that - "if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power." 8. A three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 have held that - "58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 9. Another three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 have laid down that - "15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that 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 the subsequent criminal proceedings. 16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders. 17. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code." 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 have held that - "Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves." 11. In the case of Manohar Singh v. State of M.P., reported in (2014) 13 SCC 75 , Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that - "Section 498-A IPC is non-compoundable. Section 4 of the Dowry Act is also non-compoundable. It is not necessary to state that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded by a court. While considering the request for compounding of offences the court has to strictly follow the mandate of Section 320 of the Code. It is, therefore, not possible to permit compounding of offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Act. However, if there is a genuine compromise between husband and wife, criminal complaints arising out of matrimonial discord can be quashed, even if the offences alleged therein are non-compoundable, because such offences are personal in nature and do not have repercussions on the society unlike heinous offences like murder, rape, etc. If the High Court forms an opinion that it is necessary to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure ends of justice, the High Court can do so. The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is not inhibited by Section 320 of the Code. Needless to say that this Court can also follow such a course." 12. In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 is the informant victim of the case and she lodged the FIR dated 20.06.2016 against her husband the petitioner No. 2 and other persons. Needless to say that this Court can also follow such a course." 12. In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 is the informant victim of the case and she lodged the FIR dated 20.06.2016 against her husband the petitioner No. 2 and other persons. Being the victim of the incident and being wife of petitioner No. 2, both of them have settled heir matrimonial dispute amicably, presently living as husband and wife in her matrimonial home and to that extent, petitioner No. 1 has also sworn an affidavit, which is a part of record of this case and therefore, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the said petitioner that she sworn said affidavit in duress and on pressure from the side of her husband. Moreover, the present application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR pertaining to Chhaygaon PS Case No. 260/2016 registered under Section 498(A) IPC field by the petitioner No. 1 against her husband the petitioner No. 2 and not for compounding of a non-compoundable offence. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court have laid down that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. It is known to all that the object of matrimonial law is to facilitate a happy and harmonious matrimonial life between the spouses. In the present case it is seen that the offences relate to is matrimony and dowry, where the wrong is basically to the victim, informant, petitioner No. 1 and that the said victim petitioner No. 1 and the offender, petitioner No. 2, husband of the said victim have already settled all matrimonial disputes between them amicably. 14. From the above, the Court is of the view that because of full and complete settlement and compromise between the husband, the alleged accused, the petitioner No. 2 with the victim wife, the petitioner No. 1; if the said criminal case being Chhaygaon PS Case No. 260/2016 is now allowed to continue, it would put the said accused petitioner No. 2, husband of the victim petitioner No. 1 to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him. Moreover, because of the said settlement between the said spouses, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner No. 2 is also remote and bleak. 15. Moreover, because of the said settlement between the said spouses, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner No. 2 is also remote and bleak. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, the Court is convinced that if the proceeding of said Chhaygaon PS Case No. 260/2016 is allowed to continue, it would be an abuse of process of the Court and that the ends of justice requires that the said criminal proceedings needs to be quashed. 16. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and in exercise of the power under Section 482 CrPC, the proceedings of Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 260/2016, corresponding to GR Case No. 939(K)/2016, under Section 498(A) IPC along with its FIR dated 20.06.2016, lodged by the petitioner No. 1, which gave rise to said Chhaygaon P S Case are set aside and quashed. 17. With the above observations, this criminal petition stands allowed.