AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.R. Udhwani, J.—RULE. Respondents waive service. Considering the relationship between 1st petitioner and complainant-2nd respondent and the settlement arrived at between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to hear the Rule today by consent of the parties. 1st petitioner-Gauravbhai Maheshbhai Mehta and 2nd respondent-Sonalben w/o., Gauravbhai Mehta were the spouses. Unfortunately, a marital discord gave rise to various criminal and civil proceedings amongst them. The proceedings under Domestic Violence Act as also for divorce being HMP No. 108 of 2013 was also instituted by the 1st petitioner. Therein, on the basis of the consent pursis, decree has been passed and thus the couple have ceased to be spouses. A copy of the pursis has been submitted to this Court signed by the 1st petitioner as well as 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent is personally present and instructs learned Counsel Mr. K.J. Panchal to submit such pursis and invite the order on that basis. Learned Counsel Mr. K.J. Panchal identifies her.
By way of settlement, the 1st petitioner has agreed to pay to the 2nd respondent a sum of Rs. 7.50 Lacs towards maintenance in the lump sum. As a consideration thereof, various criminal cases including Misc. Criminal Application No. 2263 of 2011 filed in the Family Court, Ahmedabad; Criminal Misc. Application No. 405 of 2011 filed under the Domestic Violence Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad; Criminal Case No. 3322 of 2011 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 7, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable Section 498A of the IPC and Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2013 pending before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad are agreed to be withdrawn unconditionally. The allegations made in Criminal Case No. 3322 of 2011 are also agreed to be withdrawn and it is further agreed to treat Rs. 7.5 0 Lac towards full and final settlement of amount of maintenance with no further claim by the 2nd respondent in future.
Similarly, Criminal Case No. 6319 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC filed in the Court of Rajkot by petitioner No. 4 herein as also HMP No. 108 of 2013 filed in the Family Court, Rajkot is agreed to be withdrawn. In HMP No. 108 of 2013, the parties agreed to invite the order by consent which has been done and copy thereof is placed on record. It is further agreed that petitioner will not object to withdrawal of Rs. 7.50 Lacs by 2nd respondent from the City Civil Court, from the proceedings arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2013.
In view of the above settlement, learned Counsel for the petitioners and 2nd respondent jointly, while inviting reference of this Court to Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, would contend to acknowledge the settlement and quash the Criminal Case No. 3322 of 2011 arising out of II-CR No. 3599 of 2011 registered with Amraiwadi Police Station, Ahmedabad giving rise to Charge-sheet No. 583 of 2011, may be quashed.
Learned APP would however contend that in various cases serious allegations have been made which necessitates a trial and the Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not exercise its discretionary powers.
Having considered the rival contentions, it is noticed that in Gian Singh (Supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court pointed out the distinction between the powers u/s 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C.; whereas the former categorizes compoundable cases, the later invests the power in the High Court to pass certain orders to secure ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. As can be noticed in Gian Singh (Supra) the Apex Court expressed the view that disputes which are predominantly of civil nature or of private character can be compounded u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. notwithstanding Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
Considering the pursis and the affidavit as also the nature of the offence u/s 498A of IPC which predominantly are of a private character, it is desirable to allow the parties to compromise it in terms of the pursis and the affidavit tendered to this Court. Accordingly, petition is required to be allowed and the same is allowed. The Criminal complaint aforesaid with all other subsequent connected proceedings are quashed. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement as evident in pursis and the affidavit in letter and spirit. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs. Direct Service is permitted.