Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1693 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Javri Lal v. Mamta W/o Ashok Kumar

2016-11-23

NAVIN SINHA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2016
ORDER : 1. These two appeals between the same parties arise from a common order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Family Judge, Pali in Civil Misc. Case No.94/2013 allowing the application for divorce preferred by the Respondent under Section 13(1)(1a) and (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and rejecting Civil Misc. Case No.93/2013 by the Appellant seeking restitution of conjugal rights. No appeal has been preferred against the order in Civil Misc. Case No.92/2013 under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 2. The parties were married on 26.01.1999. The Respondent filed an application for divorce on 29.08.2012 and the Appellant instituted the application for restitution of conjugal rights thereafter on 22.11.2012. The Family Judge allowed the respondents application and rejected the Appellants plea. It is not considered necessary to set out the complete facts of the case, the evidence and the contentions and counter contentions in view of the submission made by the Counsel for the parties for a consent order pursuant to mediation held between the parties as they both desire to start their lives anew leaving their past behind. 3. Counsel for the Appellant submits that he is not interested in pursuing the appeals subject to the condition that the criminal case filed by the Respondent against him is quashed in the present proceedings. Counsel for the Respondent submits that she has no objection to the same subject to the Appellant agreeing to quashing of the proceedings under his protest petition after submission of final report by the police in the case filed by him against the Respondent. 4. The criminal proceedings instituted by the Respondent under section 498 A IPC is registered as Criminal Original case No.75/2013 pending before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Pali. Likewise the protest petition filed by the Appellant is pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali consequent to Final Report No.50/2015 submitted by the Investigating Officer in FIR No.48/2015 filed by him under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC. 5. The criminal prosecutions filed by the parties were obviously but a sequel to their plea for divorce and restitution of conjugal rights in an otherwise acrimonius relationship. Undoubtedly, it only escalated the divide between them which has now ended in a peaceful settlement by which they have decided not to live together and start their lives anew. 5. The criminal prosecutions filed by the parties were obviously but a sequel to their plea for divorce and restitution of conjugal rights in an otherwise acrimonius relationship. Undoubtedly, it only escalated the divide between them which has now ended in a peaceful settlement by which they have decided not to live together and start their lives anew. To leave the criminal prosecutions alive, in the facts and circumstances of the case would be a travesty of justice and will only imperil the desire of the parties to erase their past and start life afresh. Any continuation of the criminal proceeding will definitely have ramifications on their future engaging their time and attention in useless pursuits hereinafter because of their having decided not to live as man and wife. 6. In (2003) 4 SCC 675 , B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana dealing with the duty of the Court to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings between the husband and wife like the present inter alia under Section 498 & 406 IPC, it was observed as follows: “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. ....…...It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counseled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts. 15. 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.” 7. Resultantly, the proceedings in Criminal Original case No.75/2013 pending before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Pali and the proceedings in the protest petition pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali consequent to Final Report No.50/2015 submitted by the Investigating Officer in FIR No.48/2015 filed by him under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC are both quashed. Both the appeals are dismissed.