Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 119 (MEG)

Dharamshobha Devi v. State of Meghalaya

2019-04-24

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners are respectively the husband and wife, due to some matrimonial acrimony petitioner No. 1 (wife) lodged an FIR with P.S. Rynjah alleging therein that her husband (petitioner No. 2) and her in-laws Shri Asarfi Rai, Smti. Geeta Devi and Shri Krishna Rai were torturing her mentally and physically right from the day of marriage i.e., from the year 2012. It is also alleged that dowry was demanded and was threatened to be burnt and killed. The case was registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet stand filed. Presently trial is in progress before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, East Khasi Hills, Shillong where the case is registered as G.R. Case No. 278 (A) 2015 under Sections 498-A/506/323/34 IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The petitioners (husband and wife) have filed the instant petition so as to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the memo of the petition it has been projected that now the relationship between the husband and wife (petitioners) is restored, they are living peacefully, therefore, for avoiding disturbance to their matrimonial life and their relationship they have sorted out their internal differences. The continuation of the trial may have adverse impact on their matrimonial life and also the relationship of the petitioner No. 1 with her in-laws. 3. It is a matter of concern that petitioner No. 1 appears to have been pushed to the wall, it is only then she resorted to lodging of criminal proceedings against her husband and the in-laws. It shall be premature to comment as to whether same is true or not, same would surface only on completion of the trial. Be that as it may, now the question is as to whether petitioners can be permitted to seek quashment of the case, the answer has to be in affirmative. No doubt the offences as allegedly committed for which the petitioner No. 2 along with his relatives are facing trial are non-compoundable but in case of matrimonial disputes/offences to allow the petition will enable the parties to live peacefully. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr.: (2013) 4 SCC 58 has ruled that it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of such disputes. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr.: (2013) 4 SCC 58 has ruled that it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of such disputes. Paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the judgment are advantageous to be quoted, "14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848, this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at. 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. 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. 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." 4. The law laid down by the Honble Apex Court squarely covers the case of the petitioners. Learned Sr. PP Mr. K. Khan is not averse to the wellbeing and peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioners but his genuine concern is that petitioner No. 1 on her own showing has abused the process of law. For advancing the cause of justice, that too when the husband and wife were pitted against each other, their matrimonial relationship was off the rails has been brought back through amicable settlement, petition is allowed. The G.R. Case No. 278 (A) 2015 pending before the court of the learned Magistrate First Class, East Khasi Hills along with consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. 5. Copy of the order be sent to the learned Magistrate for closing the proceedings. 6. Petition succeeds, shall stand disposed of as above.