AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
The petitioner and the respondent no.1 are husband and wife. They were married in the year 2005. Presently the petitioner is facing a criminal prosecution before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Gangtok, Sikkim in G.R. Case No.100 of 2023 under section 498A and section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The criminal prosecution was initiated by an allegation made by the respondent no.1-his wife on 14.04.2022 before the Sadar Police Station, Gangtok making detailed allegation suffered by her by the acts of the petitioner. On the basis of the First Information Report (FIR) G.R. Case No.100 of 2023 against the petitioner was lodged and investigation resulted in filing of the charge sheet stating that prima facie case against the petitioner under the said provision of law had been made out.
Heard Mr. Rahul Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Safal Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Ms. Pema Bhutia, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.2.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cautions this Court with regard to the allegations of repeated misconduct on the part of the petitioner in the charge-sheet which compelled me to have a more detailed interaction with the petitioner.
I have also interacted with both the petitioner as well as the respondent no.1 on two earlier occasions. Today I had the occasion to have a personal conversation with them in camera proceedings.
The petitioner-husband regrets his conduct which led to the filing of the FIR, he repents his action and seeks forgiveness from respondent no.1-his wife. The respondent no.1 also submits that both of them have been living together for the last two years and he has now changed himself and he is a better man. Both of them state that they have a daughter who is 18 years old who is living with them and they want to ensure that her happiness remains paramount.
The learned counsel representing the petitioner-husband and respondent no.1-wife also state that they have personally interviewed each of their clients and they also believe that it would be in the best interest of the family if the criminal proceeding before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gangtok in G.R. Case No.100 of 2023 is quashed to give them a second chance in life.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Phuchung Tshering Bhutia & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim1 in which this Court had quashed a similar prosecution under section 498A IPC on a compromise entered between the husband and wife. This Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.2 and quoted paragraphs 61 thereof. For better understanding and clarity about how this Court is to proceed, I deem it fit to reproduce the paragraph once again.
“61.The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” [Emphasis supplied]
In Phuchung Tshering Bhutia (supra) this Court has held that since, the present matter also arises out of matrimonial dispute, parties have entered into compromise and a written Deed of Compromise has been placed on record, the ends of justice will be met if the proceedings in the Trial Court are quashed.
The petitioner-husband and the respondent no.1-wife have also in the present case entered into a Deed of Compromise dated 02.04.2026. The agreement between them is as under:-
“1.That it is agreed between both the Parties that the First and Second Party, taking into consideration the well-being of their daughter shall resolve all differences and maintain a good relationship.
2.That the First Party shall undertake not to misbehave and ill-treat the Second Party and shall always maintain a good relationship with her.
3.That it is agreed by both the Parties to jointly approach the appropriate court to Quash the FIR No. 59/2022, dated 14.04.2022, Under Section 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is pending for trial before the Learned Judicial Magistrate at Gangtok, Sikkim filed by the Second Party against the First Party.
4.That after understanding the contents of the present Agreement/Deed and its implications thereof and with due desire, without threat, coercion or any undue influence, both the parties have signed this agreement/ deed in their free state of mind and with full presence of mind and in future none of the Parties their heirs, successors, representatives, administrators and assigns shall have any claim and/or dispute the contents of the Complaint and/or this present Compromise Deed and/or Agreement, in any manner whatsoever.”
The Petitioner as well as the respondent no.1 who are personally present before this Court admit their signatures in the Compromise Deed. They also admit it has been entered without threat, coercion or any undue influence and in the best interest of the family.
In view of the Compromise Deed, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well the personal interest of the parties involved, this Court is of the considered opinion that the criminal prosecution against the petitioner-husband be quashed to enable them to continue their life with an assurance from the petitioner that he shall conduct himself in a manner conducive for a peaceful and respectful matrimonial co-existence. An old Nepali proverb says "लोग्ने - स्वास्न ीको झगडा परालको आगो" whose English equivalent would be “A quarrel between husband and wife is like a straw fire-it burns brightly but briefly.” With such hope that the good will always prevail, I exercise my discretion to quash the Sadar Police Station Case No.(FIR No.) 59/2022 dated 14.04.2022 and G.R. Case No. 100 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gangtok Sikkim.
Accordingly, the Crl. M.C. No.06 of 2026 along with I.A. No. 01 of 2026 stands disposed.