AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is pertinent to mention here that the instant application, bearing Cr. Misc. No. 49389 of 2016, was dismissed for default vide order dated 04.04.2024 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, an application seeking restoration of Cr. Misc. No. 49389 of 2016 was filed vide Cr. Misc. No. 43759 of 2024, which was allowed by order dated 28.06.2024 and thus, Cr. Misc. No. 43759 of 2024 (restoration application) stands disposed of. However, it appears that inadvertently the office tagged both the cases together, as a result of which they are shown in the daily cause-list, running as analogous cases. Consequently, in the order dated 27.07.2026, whereby judgment in the instant application, i.e., Cr. Misc. No. 49389 of 2016, was reserved, reference was also made to the restoration application, i.e., Cr. Misc. No. 43759 of 2024.
In view of the above, the order dated 27.07.2026 shall be read and treated as recording that “judgment reserved in Cr. Misc. No. 49389 of 2016”.
The present application has been preferred by the petitioners, who are in-laws of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, assailing the order dated 01.06.2016 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra (in short the S.D.J.M., Saran at Chapra), in connection with Trial No. 1025 of 2016 arising out of Complaint Case No. 596 of 2011, whereby the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners has been rejected.
The instant criminal proceeding has been initiated on the basis of a complaint petition filed by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra on 28.03.2011, alleging inter alia that the complainant/opposite party No. 2, namely, Indu, D/o Dr. Gopal Mishra, R/o Village-Madarpur, P.S.-Mashrakh, District-Saran, was married on 05.06.2006 at Varanasi according to Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, she went to her matrimonial home at Varanasi and started residing along with her in-laws. She remained there for about two years and out of the wedlock, a daughter was born on 02.04.2008. It has further been alleged that after some time, the members of her matrimonial family started subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demands for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- besides ornaments, television, washing machine and other house-hold articles. Upon failure to fulfill the said demands, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was subjected to torture and was, ultimately, compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The complainant/opposite party No. 2 has further alleged that thereafter, she started residing with her parents at Sonpur, whereafter her father and other relatives made efforts for reconciliation, pursuant to which, she again went back to her matrimonial home at Varanasi. It has further been alleged that during her subsequent stay at Varanasi, she conceived for the second time, but the accused persons (the petitioners herein), apprehending the birth of another child and threatened her of dire consequences and administered medicines to her, as a result of which she suffered an abortion. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant/opposite party No. 2 called her brother and left Varanasi and, again, started residing at her parental home along with her father and mother.
On the basis of the aforesaid complaint petition, a complaint case, bearing Complaint Case No. 596 of 2011, was instituted, in which, learned S.D.J.M., Saran at Chapra has recorded solemn affirmation of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 as well as the statement of the enquiry witnesses and thereafter, after having considered the same, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC) against all the accused persons (the petitioners herein) vide order dated 08.05.2012, which was challenged before this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 29315 of 2012, raising the ground of jurisdictional incompetence of the learned S.D.J.M. Saran at Chapra to take cognizance of the offences, which alleged to have taken place outside the territorial jurisdiction of Saran at Chapra. However, this Court has disposed of the aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. 29315 of 2012 vide order dated 01.04.2015 with a liberty to the petitioners to raise the issue of jurisdiction before the learned Trial Court at an appropriate stage.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioners before this Court are the in-laws and relatives of the complainant/opposite party No. 2. Their respective relationships with the complainant/opposite party No. 2 are as follows: petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law; petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law; petitioner No. 3 is the sister-in-law (Nanad); petitioner No. 4 is the brother-in-law (Devar); and petitioner Nos. 6, 7, and 8 are relatives of her husband respectively.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that on account of purely matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife, the instant case was instituted, implicating the entire family members without there being any categorical and specific allegation of committing any torture on the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and the learned Trial Court, without considering the vital aspects of the matter, mechanically proceeded with the trial and rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioners herein under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Cr.P.C.) for discharging them from the aforesaid case vide order dated 01.06.2016.
It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that vide order dated 17.04.2025, this Court, while issuing notice to the complainant/opposite party No. 2, stayed the further proceeding of Complaint Case No. 596 of 2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that during the pendency of the case at hand, the matter was referred to the Patna High Court Mediation Centre, where the mediation proceeding between the parties was instituted vide Mediation Proceeding No. 1394 of 2019 (arising out of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1043 of 2018). After the valiant effort of the learned Mediator, the parties, viz., the husband and the wife (the complainant/opposite party No. 2 herein) arrived at a “Memorandum of Agreement”, which was duly inscribed in black and white on 31.01.2020 at the Patna High Court Mediation Centre in the following terms:-
The Court, after having considered the afore-noted facts, is of the view that the offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC is non-compoundable, but in the backdrop of the amicable resolution of dispute between the parties, which is primarily matrimonial in nature, could in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can compound offences, which are non-compoundable in the light of judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while accepting settlement deed between the parties and quashing the proceedings, laid down guidelines for High Courts and observed in paragraph 29 and 29.1 as follows:-
“29.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution”.
Furthermore recently in the case of Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P., reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 32 as hereunder:-
“32.proceeding with the trial, when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, would be futile and the ends of justice require that the sentiment be given effect to by quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of process particularly when the dispute is settled and resolved”.
In the conspectus of above-mentioned factual legal aspect of the case at hand where amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties vide Mediation Proceeding No. 1394 of 2019, referred to above, wherein the parties have decided to part ways and also decided to withdraw the case filed against the petitioners including the present complaint case, this Court is of the considered view that the settlement so arrived at between the parties be given effect to by quashing the criminal proceeding and as such, the present case is a fit one for exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present criminal dispute alive as the continuance of the same would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
Thus, the order impugned in the present application dated 01.06.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Saran at Chapra, in connection with Trial No. 1025 of 2016 arising out of Complaint Case No. 596 of 2011, is, hereby, quashed and set aside and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are also quashed and set aside.
The application stands allowed accordingly.
The interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.