Charu Gupta and Others vs State of H.P.

Sanjay Karol, J.—F.I.R. No. 65/2009, dated 23.4.2009 under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla on the asking of Smt. Charu Gupta, petitioner No. 1 herein, is married to Shri Vishal Gupta, petitioner No. 2 herein. The complaint was filed against petitioners No. 3, 4, 5 and 6, who are close relatives of petitioner No. 2. All the petitioners are seeking quashing of the said F.I.R. for the reason that the dispute between the husband and the wife as also remaining members of the families stands amicably resolved. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 have instituted proceedings for divorce by mutual consent. The second motion petition is listed before the trial Court today itself. All the petitioners are present today in the Court and petitioners No. 1 and 2, through their learned counsel, have undertaken to make statement in the said petition today itself.

The parties, through their learned counsel, have represented that all the disputes and differences, including dowry demand, stand amicably resolved. The F.I.R. was lodged on account of certain misunderstanding between the parties. Also, petitioner No. 1 has received a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- (rupees thirteen lacs) balance amount settled by the parties towards matrimonial maintenance, alimony, Istridhan, etc. through Demand Drafts No. 544508 and 544509 today itself.

The Apex Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2013 arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 6462 of 2012], has held as under:-- 11. The inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court u/s 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.

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 its extraordinary jurisdiction.

It is trite to state that the power u/s 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 the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised inappropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.

Keeping in view all the attending circumstances, including the fact that the dispute primarily is matrimonial in nature, F.I.R. No. 65/2009, dated 23.4.2009 under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla, is quashed. Also, proceedings initiated pursuant to the said F.I.R., titled as State of H.P. versus Bhawna Gupta and others, which are pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. IV, Shimla, are quashed.

In view of the aforesaid observations, present appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.