AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Admit.
Since, both the applications are arising out of the same First Information Report, they are being disposed of by this common order.
The applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No.646/2023 are the brother-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant/non-applicant no.2 and the applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No.1929/2026 is the husband.
The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.07/2023 registered with Police Station, Patan, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (for short “the Act of 2019) on account of settlement.
The First Information Report indicates that marriage between applicant – Anwar Khan and non-applicant no.2/complainant was performed on 19.10.2024. Thereafter, non-applicant no.2 went to cohabit with applicant – Anwar Khan. After 5 to 6 months of marriage, applicant – Anwar Khan started harassing the complainant on trivial issues and started suspecting her character. It is alleged in the FIR that applicant – Anwar Khan assaulted the complainant and even ousted the complainant from the house at one point. The applicant also gave triple talaq to the complainant on at least two occasions. The other applicants were also abusing the complainant. Fed up with the harassment, the complainant lodged a complaint with Police Station, Patan, District Chandrapur on 18.03.2023 against the applicants and other co-accused.
In response to the notice, the complainant appeared through her counsel. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered across the bar, the vakalatnama which is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. The complainant also filed her affidavits in both the applications, which are taken on record and marked as “X1” for identification. It is contended in the affidavit that the matter has been amicably settled between applicant – Anwar Khan and the complainant. The affidavit indicates that applicant – Anwar Khan and the complainant have parted ways by way of Khulanama and Talaqnama. The complainant further contends in her affidavit that she does not want to prosecute the applicants and she has no objection if the FIR and the consequential proceedings, if any, are quashed.
The present FIR is an outcome of a matrimonial discord between applicant – Anwar Khan and the complainant. Both the parties have settled their dispute out of the Court and have parted ways amicably. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings may become a hindrance in their future peaceful life. The offence under Section 4 of the Act of 2019 is compoundable by virtue of Section 7.
In the decision in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Supreme Court has held as under:
“10.considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed 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. This Court said 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. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. 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 “negative”. 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.”
In view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court to quash the FIR. Hence, the following order is passed:
The criminal application is allowed.
First Information Report bearing Crime No.07/2023 registered with Police Station, Patan, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and consequential proceedings, if any, are hereby quashed and set aside subject to payment of costs of ₹5,000/- by the applicants to the Public Welfare Fund, Account No.129712010001014 IFSC Code : UBIN0812978, Bank Name – Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur within two weeks from the date of this order.
The application stands disposed of.