AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The second respondent was married to first petitioner as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies, according to her version, on 01.07.2009. On 13.10.2012,
she lodged first information report (FIR) no. 232/2012 with police station Bharat Nagar alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A/406 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband (the first petitioner), his father (the second petitioner) and his mother (the third petitioner). On
conclusion of the investigation, police filed report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) on which cognizance was
taken, the said matter being pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The matrimonial disputes also led to FIR being C.R. no. II-2 of 2013
being lodged at police station Bhavnagar in Gujarat by the petitioner against the second respondent alleging offence under Section 507 IPC. In the
proceedings arising out of the case in Gujarat, the parties were referred to mediation. Eventually, they entered into a settlement agreement dated
31.07.2013 before the mediation centre at Rohini District courts, New Delhi. Pursuant to terms and conditions settled in such agreement, they had
resolved to approach the appropriate forum to obtain a decree of divorce and also to approach the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and this Court
for quashing of the criminal cases arising out of the said two FIRs.
The petition, thus, has been moved before this court invoking Section 482 Cr. PC seeking quashing of the FIR 232/2012 under Sections 406 and
498A IPC of Police Station Bharat Nagar.
The second respondent pursuant to directions in the last order has submitted an updated detailed affidavit sworn on 10.10.2018. Her reply filed
earlier and the affidavit dated 10.10.2018 collectively show that the second respondent confirms that she has settled all the disputes with the
petitioners in terms of settlement agreement dated 31.07.2013, out of her own free will and volition and without any pressure or coercion. At the
hearing, both sides confirmed that the parties had earlier approached the Family Court by two separate petitions one after the other on the basis of
which their marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce granted on 16.12.2017. The second respondent through her affidavit dated 10.10.2018
and also orally through counsel at the hearing has confirmed that she has received the entire money agreed toÂ
be paid to her by the first petitioner pursuant to the above-mentioned settlement in full and final settlement of all her claims against him.
On being asked, she has produced her official identity card, self-attested photocopy whereof has been taken on record.
Pertinent to note here that since offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable, the parties are constrained to move this court for quashing
on the basis of amicable resolution arrived at by them in the facts and circumstances noted above.
The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this court by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) read with Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings, was examined by the Supreme Court in B.S.
Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675, against the backdrop of a catena of earlier decisions. Noting, with reference to the
decision in State of Karnakata Vs. L Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, that in exercise of this “inherent†and “wholesome powerâ€, the
touchstone is as to whether “the ends of justice so requireâ€, and it was observed thus :
“10. ... 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. ...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.â€
(emphasis supplied)
The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi (supra) further noted as under :-
“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 the 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? The
answer clearly has to be in the “negativeâ€. 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.â€
 (emphasis supplied)
Holding that “special features in ...matrimonial matters are evident†and that it is “the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputesâ€, referring to Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojiroo Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 69,2 it was further observed
that :
“11. ... Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are 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.â€
(emphasis supplied)
In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court contrasted the request for quashing of criminal proceedings on
the basis of settlement with the possibility of compounding of an offence and observed thus :-
“57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as
compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under
Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding
of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby
while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is
guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be
acquittal or dismissal of indictment.â€
(emphasis supplied)
The above views in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting in criminal proceedings have been consistently followed over the years, as may be
further illustrated by the decision of a bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors. Vs. Babita
Raghuvanshi and Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58, the following observations summarising the philosophy succinctly :-
“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.
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. 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...â€
(emphasis supplied)
In a case where criminal proceedings arise essentially out of matrimonial dispute and the parties have decided to bury the hatchet, the courtÂ
must examine if there is any likelihood of the criminal prosecution resulting in conviction. In fact-situation wherein the
matrimonial relation has been brought to an end by mutual consent and the parties are eager to move on with their respective lives seeking closure and
if there is nothing to indicate lack of bonafide on the part of any side, denial of the prayer for quashing the criminal case would restore acrimony rather
than bring about peace. Allowing continuance of the criminal action would be fruitless and clearly an abuse of judicial
process.
The case at hand passes the muster of the above-noted tests.
In the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. The crime registered by the police vide FIR 232/2012 under Sections 406 and 498A
IPC of Police Station Bharat Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Dasti to both sides.