Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1539 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2021-08-18

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
JUDGMENT In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent jointly prays for closure of case on count of compromise between the parties in matrimonial offence after the appeal against conviction has been dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2021. Counsel for the parties have relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court passed in Pramod & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr., in application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., 12174 of 2020, decided on 23.02.2021, relevant portion whereof reads as follows :- "42. This Court is of the considered opinion that the aim and object of law is not only to punish the culprit, but, the objective of the law is also to maintain peace, tranquility, prosperity and harmony in society as well as in the country. If there is a compromise between husband and wife and they are living to live together and to lead happy family life, then it will also be ideal in building our society. Marriage is a sacred ceremony of our society, the main objective 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. 43. In the facts of the present case, the marriage of the applicant no. 1 was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 but after some time of their marriage, the relations between the two became strained and incompatible resulting in initiation of present criminal proceedings by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants, under Sections498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C., as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act. 1 was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 but after some time of their marriage, the relations between the two became strained and incompatible resulting in initiation of present criminal proceedings by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants, under Sections498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C., as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act. Thereafter, the applicants have been convicted for an offence under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. as also under Section 4 D.P. Act by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad vide order dated 02.12.2017. Against the said order of conviction, applicants filed an appeal in which they have been enlarged on bail. During the pendency of the appeal, after settling their all the disputes, they have arrived at a compromise and now they are living happily as husband and wife under the same roof, and enjoying their happy family life with their son. If this Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., does not quash the criminal proceedings as well as the order of conviction, then the happy life of husband i.e. applicant no. 1 and wife (opposite party no. 2) will be ruined, especially the happy future life of son of applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2, who has not seen anything yet and whose golden future remains yet to commence and who will suffer a lot. 44. Thus, with regard to third issue, whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings during the pendency of appeal filed against the judgment and order of conviction, this Court is in respectful agreement with the finding recorded by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kiran Tulshiram Ingale (Supra), wherein it has been observed that firstly in this case the parties have compromised even after conviction and, the object of compromise is to live happily, peacefully, though separately after divorce. The Sessions Court has taken cognizance of this compromise and has reduced the conviction and altered it to a bond under the Probation of Offenders Act. Secondly, conviction by the first court is not end of the matter and appeal therefrom is continuation of proceeding and, if a revision is filed, in case conviction is maintained, altered, reduced, then the High Court in revision does have the power to pass effective orders in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court. Secondly, conviction by the first court is not end of the matter and appeal therefrom is continuation of proceeding and, if a revision is filed, in case conviction is maintained, altered, reduced, then the High Court in revision does have the power to pass effective orders in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court. Conviction does not attain finality if the appeal is filed and, if the revision is filed against conviction by appellate court, there also all issues become open before the High Court. On the basis of said observations, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner so also conviction by both the Courts below hereby stood quashed, in view of the mutual understanding, divorce and compromise between the husband and wife. The Three Judges' Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Maya Sanjay Khandare (Supra), has affirmed the said decision of the Division Bench by observing that the ratio of the decision in Kiran T. Ingale (supra) has to be understood in the context that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised for quashing criminal proceedings at any stage especially those arising out of a matrimonial disputes. (Emphasis added) 45. Accordingly, while relying upon the law laid down by the Three Judges' Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (Supra) and the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kiran Tulshiram Ingale (Supra) and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., allows the present application and quashes the criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 93/2012, under Sections498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Thana, District Ghaziabad, on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties. 46. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd December, 2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad, convicting the applicants under Sections 323, 498-A I.P.C. as also under Section 4 D.P. Act, is set aside. 46. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd December, 2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad, convicting the applicants under Sections 323, 498-A I.P.C. as also under Section 4 D.P. Act, is set aside. The appeal preferred by the accused-applicants against the aforesaid judgment and order is rendered infructuous and shall be declared so by the appellate Court." Counsel for the parties have also further relied upon judgment of this Hon'ble Court (Jaipur Bench) in Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in Volume II (2005) DMC 412 relevant portion whereof reads as follows :- "6. I have given my anxious consideration to the above arguments and have gone through the case laws cited at the Bar. It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction the Court should encourage genuine settlements of the cases arising out of matrimonial disputes. While considering the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in V.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana, have observed as under: "There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX- A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent 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 hypertechnical view would be counter-productive and would act against interest 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 XX-A of the Indian Penal Code." 7. The present case also arises out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Undisputedly the parties have entered into a written compromise and are living peacefully. However, the question that still emerges for consideration of this Court is whether after conviction having been recorded, the offence can be ordered to be compounded and/or the criminal proceedings pending in the Appellate Court can be ordered to be dropped? 8. Undisputedly the parties have entered into a written compromise and are living peacefully. However, the question that still emerges for consideration of this Court is whether after conviction having been recorded, the offence can be ordered to be compounded and/or the criminal proceedings pending in the Appellate Court can be ordered to be dropped? 8. In O.P. Dholikia's case (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with a case arising out of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, considered the question as to what is the proper stage for compounding the offence. Their Lordships found force with the argument of the Counsel for the stage that conviction and sentence having been upheld by all the three Forums, the Apex Court need not interfere with the same as it was open for the parties to enter into a compromise at an earlier stage when the appeal was pending. However, taking into consideration the nature of offence in question and the fact that complainant and the accused had already entered into a compromise, Their Lordships thought it appropriate to grant permission, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case to compound and accordingly annulled the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act. 9. In Govinda's case (supra) the accused were convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. and appeal against conviction was pending before the Appellate Court. During pendency of appeal, the parties entered into a compromise and ultimately invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. This Court refused to invoke inherent jurisdiction for assuming direction to compound the offence under Section 489A, I.P.C. But considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in series of decisions referred to in the judgment, this Court ordered for quashing the proceedings in appeal holding that continuance of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law and would not be in the interest of justice. 10. Evidently thus, the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Govind and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (supra). 10. Evidently thus, the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Govind and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (supra). Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as stated hereinabove, the continuance of proceedings in appeal pending before the Appellate Court, in my considered view would not be in the interest of justice and keeping the proceedings pending would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 11. In the result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 28/2003 Ram Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, filed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2003, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg, District Bharatpur are quashed. Necessarily the conviction and sentence under Section 498A, I.P.C. under the judgment and order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the Trial Court stands annulled. " The question of interference by this Court in the post- appellate stage of conviction is not ordinarily acceptable proposition and ought not to be allowed in a criminal offence normally. Distinction, however, in this case can be drawn upon the fact that the offence involved is a matrimonial offence and it is the goal of law in society that the sanctity of marriage has to be looked into with a different prism as matrimonial crime if resolved, lead to maintaining peace, tranquillity, and harmony of the family as well as the society. If at any stage of matrimonial dispute, the differences are resolved, it can be a welcome step and the process of law should not become an impediment for husband and wife resolves dispute and started living peacefully and happily in the matrimony. The precedent law supports the cause of petitioner and the respondent No.2. In light of aforesaid precedent law as well as discussion made hereabove, the present Misc. Petition is allowed and impugned judgments dated 12.05.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatol in Criminal Regular Case No.374/2005 as well as the judgment dated 15.07.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in CIS No.48/2015 are quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise. It is made clear that precedent law involved in this case is strictly applicable to matrimonial offence, particularly, where husband and wife have to decided to resolve their matrimonial conflict.