Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 187 (JK)

Meenakshi Balgotra v. UT of J&K

2022-04-22

MOHAN LAL

body2022
ORDER : 1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seek quashing of proceedings pending in the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate Electricity, Jammu in case titled U.T of J&K vs Jaipaul & Ors. 2. It has been stated in the petition that the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 20.10.2011 according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Jammu. From the very beginning of the marriage, respondent No.2 along with his family members started treating the petitioner with cruelty in order to get his demands of dowry in the shape of Alto Car, AC, Golden ornaments fulfilled but her parents being poor could not meet their demands, respondent No.2 and his family members used to beat her on number of occasions and was also thrown out of house. Both petitioner and respondent No. 2 ever since their marriage did not pull on together being of different ideas, habits, tastes and thoughts and so being completely of different temperaments and nature did not and could never adjust themselves and there is no chance of reconciliation between them in future. It is also stated that civil as well as criminal cases filed by them against each other are pending between the parties in different courts at Jammu. 3. It has further been stated that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of J&K Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2, but later on a compromise was reached between the parties with their common consent and mutual understanding, the petitioner withdrew the divorce petition, where they had also furnished their statements by way of affidavits to the effect that they shall withdraw all the cases filed by them against each other from all the Courts. 4. Petitioner has annexed with the petition an affidavit of petitioner stating therein that she does not want to pursue the criminal Challan in case FIR No. 20/2012 U/Ss 498-A, 109 RPC against the respondent No.2 and his family members, pending in the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Electricity, Jammu as both the petitioner and respondent No.2 have mutually dissolved their marriage u/s 13 HM Act and nothing stands outstanding against each other. 5. The instant petition is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner. 6. 5. The instant petition is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner. 6. Pursuant to the order dated 22.03.2022, the Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of both the petitioner and respondent No.2. The same are placed on record, which read as under:- Statement of Meenakshi Balgotra (petitioner), age 35 years, W/o Jaipaul, D/o N. D. Balgotra, R/o H.No. 149, Old Janipur, District Jammu on oath today i.e.05.04.2022; Stated that I have settled all disputes and issues with Jaipaul (respondent No.2) out of Court and we have mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage. In view of our compromise, I pray before the Hon’ble Court to quash the Criminal proceedings pending in the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate Electricity, Jammu in case titled “U.T of J&K vs Jaipaul and others.” Statement of Jaipaul (respondent No. 2), age 39 years, S/o Late Sh. Shiv Dayal, R/o H.No. 149, Old Janipur, Jammu on oath today i.e. 05.04.2022 : Stated that I have settled all disputes and issues with Meenakshi Balgotra (petitioner) out of Court and we have mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage. In view of our compromise, the Hon’ble Court may kindly quash the Criminal proceedings pending in the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate Electricity, Jammu in case titled “U.T of J&K vs Jaipaul and others.” 7. Bare perusal of the statements of petitioner and respondent No.2 placed on record demonstrate that the parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their differences. 8. The Apex Court in the case of “B. S. Joshi & others Vs State of Haryana and another”, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 while discussing the ambit and scope of inherent powers of High Courts under Section 482 CPC in paras 1, 3, 13, 14, 15 and 16 held as under : “1. The question that falls for determination in the instant case is about the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings. The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 has been examined by this Court in catena of earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes. The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 has been examined by this Court in catena of earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes. The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not only against the husband but his other family members also. When such matters are resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the First Information Report or complaint filed by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.” 3. The High Court has, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition filed by the appellants seeking quashing of the FIR for in view of the High Court the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC are non-compoundable and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to bypass the mandatory provision of Section 320 of the Code. For its view, the High Court has referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335]; Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra [ (1977) 4 SCC 551 ; and Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. v. State of Orissa [ AIR 1999 SC 2181 ]. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. [ (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. 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. 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 XXA 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. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned.” 9. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned.” 9. In the case titled “Aanjana (Smt.) and another Vs State of Rajasthan”, reported in RLW 2005(2) Raj 988 while relying upon the judgment of B. S. Joshi & others case (supra) and while discussing the ambit and scope of inherent powers of the High Courts under Sections 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 & 9 held as under: “6. In B.S. Joshi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants sought quashing of FIR due to settlement of disputes between the husband and wife, who agreed to mutual divorce and the wife supported' quashing of the criminal proceedings under Sees. 498-A, 323 and 406 IPC. In that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where there are almost no chance of conviction, it would be improper to decline to exercise power of quashing the proceedings on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. The Apex Court observed that Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 CrPC. The Apex Court further observed that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier and that would be against the object of Section 498A, IPC. The Apex Court further held as under:- "The object of introducing Chapter XX-A in IPC 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. A hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interests of women and against the object for which this provisions 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. This is not the object of Chapter XX-A of IPC. ” 7. 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. This is not the object of Chapter XX-A of IPC. ” 7. In Madhavrao Jiwanjirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482 CrPC, 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. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident and it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. 8. In the instant case, both the petitioners, who are husband and wife, have arrived at a compromise and verifying the factum of compromise. When the parties have arrived at a compromise to drop the criminal proceedings, then there are almost no chances of conviction. Further, in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and Madhavrao Jiwanjirao Scindia's case (supra), for encouraging genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes between the parties, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner No. 2. 9. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No. 107/2003 pending against the petitioner No. 2 before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara for the offence under Section 498A, IPC is hereby quashed.” 10. The ratio of judgment of B. S. Joshi’s case (supra) and Aanjana (Smt.) case (supra) make the legal proposition abundantly clear that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice if the parties have settled their disputes amicably by a compromise. The ratios of judgments (supra) are clearly applicable to the case in hand. 11. In the case in hand the parties have arrived at a compromise, so there would be no chance of conviction in near future in case trial is held and concluded. 12. In view of the above, this petition stands allowed. 13. The ratios of judgments (supra) are clearly applicable to the case in hand. 11. In the case in hand the parties have arrived at a compromise, so there would be no chance of conviction in near future in case trial is held and concluded. 12. In view of the above, this petition stands allowed. 13. Consequently, proceedings in challan arising out of FIR No.20/2012 for commission of offences under Sections 498-A & 109 RPC of Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, pending before the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate Electricity, Jammu in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, is quashed. 14. Copy of this order be sent to Court below for compliance.