Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 888 (JHR)

Minu Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-19

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : Heard Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Abdul Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 2. The petitioners in the application have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 3284 of 2009 including the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC. 3. A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party No.2 in which it was alleged that the elder son of the complainant has solemnised marriage with the petitioner No. 1 in the year 2005. It is alleged that the mental disorder of the petitioner No. 1 was suppressed at the time of the marriage and subsequently the petitioner No. 1 started ill-treatment with her husband and other in-laws. Allegations have also been levelled that petitioner No. 1 was pressurising her husband to live separately from his parents and ultimately on 17.2.2009 the petitioner had left the house of the complainant and started residing at her parental house. It has also been stated in the complaint petition that on 23.8.2009, the accused persons had suddenly entered into the house of the complainant and has assaulted the complainant and his wife and had forcibly taken away gold comments belonging to the wife of the complainant. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Complaint Case No. 3284 of 2009 was instituted wherein after conducting an injury, cognizance was taken by the learned SDJM, Jamshedpur for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the parties had instituted case against each other as the petitioner No. 1 in the present case has instituted a Complaint Case No. 102 of 2009 under Sections 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been submitted that subsequently a compromise has arrived at between the petitioner No. 1 and the son of the complainant on various terms and conditions. The learned counsel submits that both the parties have agreed for withdrawal of the criminal cases instituted against each other in the District Courts of Jamtara and Jamshedpur. It has been submitted that subsequently a compromise has arrived at between the petitioner No. 1 and the son of the complainant on various terms and conditions. The learned counsel submits that both the parties have agreed for withdrawal of the criminal cases instituted against each other in the District Courts of Jamtara and Jamshedpur. It has also been submitted that the petitioner No.1 as well as the son of the complainant shall not claim monetary benefits from each other and so far as the son of the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, it has been decided that he would remain in custody of the petitioner No. 1. It has also been submitted that an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has also been filed and which is also in terms and conditions of the agreement. 6. Mr. Arbind Kumar learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 accepted the factum of compromise and submitted that he does not have any objection if the entire criminal proceeding is quashed in view of the compromise filed in which the various terms and conditions agreed upon has been enumerated. The same also includes withdrawal of the criminal cases instituted against each other. 7. In the present case, the complainant happens to be the further-in-law of the petitioner No. 1. 8. In view of the fact that compromise has been effected and the parties have decided to separate, apart from the other terms and conditions which are agreed upon them, continuation of the criminal proceeding will be an act of futility. Therefore, in view of the compromise, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 3284 of 2009 including the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Pending IAs, if any also stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.