Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2846 (ALL)

TARUN CHAWLA v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-12-06

PRATYUSH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pratyush Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants and for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record. 2. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of Case No. 476 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI (Ayodhya Prakaran), Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on behalf of OP No. 2, affidavit dated 15.9.2016 has been filed, admitting the fact of compromise. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in he case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 SCC (Cri) 848, wherein the Apex Court has held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. Thus, 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. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 do not dispute the aforesaid legal position. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has further submitted that it is true that in between the parties compromise have been entered into and also admits that the opposite party No. 2 now does not want to pursue the cases pending in some other Courts in terms of the compromise aforesaid. 7. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court finds that the Hon’ble Apex Court in para Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13,14 and 15 has held as under: “10. 7. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court finds that the Hon’ble Apex Court in para Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13,14 and 15 has held as under: “10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 , considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was ob served that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in ‘negative’. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides. 11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, (1988) 1 SCC 692 , it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, 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 is 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. 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. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others, (2000) 3 SCC 693 , are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, 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 counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. 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 counselled 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. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A 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 hyper-technical view would be counter productive 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 settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of 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.” 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the arguments of the counsel for the parties and taking into account the compromise entered into between the parties and also considering the observations of the Apex Court, this Court finds that the High Court has ample power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court. 9. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. 9. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of Case No. 476 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI (Ayodhya Prakaran), Lucknow are set aside.