Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 4 (MP)

Chandra Shekhar Joshi v. Priyanka Tiwari

2020-01-06

RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2020
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This application under section 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jabalpur registered in Criminal Case No. RCT 4138/2018 for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 294 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. As per prosecution, petitioner No. 1 is father-in-law of the respondent No. 1, petitioner No. 2 is mother-in-law of the respondent No. 1, petitioner No. 3 is husband of respondent No. 1 and petitioner No. 4 is sister-in-law of the respondent No. 1. Petitioner No. 3 got married with respondent No. 1 on 1.6.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals, after marriage petitioners have started making demand of dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of the demand, they harassed her mentally and physically. On 28.6.2018, while petitioner No. 3/husband has appeared before the trial Court for giving his appearance and respondent No. 1/wife has also appeared in the Court then applicant No. 3 has illegally restrained, abused her filthily and threatened to defame her. Thereafter, on 2.7.2018, respondent No. 1 lodged the FIR at concerned Police Station Jabalpur, District-Jabalpur vide Crime No. 49/2018 against the petitioners for the alleged offences, thereafter, this case was registered in RCT No. 4138/2018 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Jabalpur, District-Jabalpur. 4. Parties have entered into compromise and want to close the proceedings by way of settlement. Vide order dated 3.12.2019, this Court has directed the parties to record their statements on the basis of compromise application before the Registrar (J-II) and in compliance thereof Registrar (Judicial-II) has recorded the statements of the parties and prepared the verification report dated 11.12.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 1 is wedded wife of the petitioner No. 3 and keeping in view her future and amicable relation being developed in between the parties, both have decided to live peacefully by discharging their matrimonial obligations with each other even along with in-laws/other petitioners, they have entered into an agreement to resolve their dispute without any fear or pressure. 6. According to the report, it appears that the petitioners and complainant are willing to resolve their dispute voluntarily without any threat and inducement and now their relation is cordial. 7. 6. According to the report, it appears that the petitioners and complainant are willing to resolve their dispute voluntarily without any threat and inducement and now their relation is cordial. 7. 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(2) 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. It may be observed that the dispute between the parties was of a private nature and matrimonial dispute. It is amicable resolution between the parties would neither effect the public at large nor send a wrong signal to the society. Though, the complainant was said to have been defrauded, but entered into a compromise with the applicant without any coercion or threat of his own freewill, accord and full satisfaction, therefore, she does not want any further action against the petitioners and they have amicably resolved their dispute. 8. It is true that the offence under section 294 of the IPC is compoundable, but section 498A of the IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act involved in the case are non compoundable offence. However, the apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , in which apex Court held that, "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 CrPC Cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Before exercise of inherent quashment power under section 482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. Offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. Before exercise of inherent quashment power under section 482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. Offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceeding." In another Judgment, the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Anita Maria Dias and another v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 29 has held as under: "The principles on this point relevant to this case are, that where offences are predominantly of civil character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions, dispute should be quashed when parties have resolved their dispute. Further, timing of settlement would be crucial for exercise of power or declining to exercise power. Where settlement is arrived at between parties immediately after commission of offence and matter is still under investigation, High Court may be liberal in accepting settlement to quash proceedings/investigation as investigation is in its early stage and charge-sheet has not been filed. Where charges are framed and recording of evidence is yet to commence or is at early stage, proceedings can be quashed after prima facie assessment of circumstances/materials. Where trial is at fag end, High Court should refrain from exercising its power as trial Court would be in position to decide matter on merits. Where accused already convicted and appeal against conviction is pending, mere settlement or compromise between victim and accused is not ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of offender" Further the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Anita Maria Dias (supra) has also held as under: "While deciding whether to exercise its power under section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above" 9. In the light of the aforesaid compromise which is taken place between the parties and looking to the fact that the complainant and petitioners have settled their dispute amicably and to see that they shall keep good terms in future, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the matter pending especially when the grievance of the complainant has been satisfied by the present petitioners. This is personal matter. Case is fixed for recording the prosecution evidence. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class Jabalpur in RCT No. 4138/2018 is hereby quashed. Therefore, petitioners are discharged from the offence punishable under sections 498A and 294 of the IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jabalpur, District-Jabalpur. ...................