AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)
By means of the Criminal Misc. Application, the applicants seek to quash the charge sheet dated 25.07.2022, the summoning order dated 05.01.2023 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 40 of 2023 (FIR No. 54 of 2022) under Sections 323, 498A, 504, and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar, pending before the Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.
The FIR was lodged on 06.02.2020 at P.S. Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar, alleging that respondent No. 2 was married to applicant No. 2 on 30.11.2020 as per Hindu rites and rituals and that, after the marriage, the applicants severely tortured and harassed respondent No. 2 for want of dowry and ousted her from the matrimonial house on 01.07.2021. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, an investigation ensued and culminated in the filing of a charge sheet dated 25.07.2022. On the basis of the charge sheet, the trial court passed the cognizance order and summoned the applicants to face trial by order dated 05.01.2023.
Assailing the aforesaid charge sheet, summoning order, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 40 of 2023, pending before the Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, the instant criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed.
During the pendency of the present criminal miscellaneous application, the applicants and respondent No. 2 entered into a compromise before the Daily Lok Adalat on 7th August 2024. In the order sheet of the Daily Lok Adalat dated 7th August 2024, it is recorded that the parties have amicably settled the matter and have filed the compromise before the Daily Lok Adalat, which reads as follows:
“COMPROMISE
1- That today on 07.08.2024 a compromise was made between the party no.1 /husband Amit Kumar Biswas and party no.2/wife Laxmi Biswas W/o Amit Kumar Biswas that an amicable settlement has been made between them in C-482 No. 1186/2023 arising out of FIR No.54/2022, U/s 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 of D.P.Act, and another C-482 No. 1792/2023 arising out of ex-parte judgment dated 10.10.2022 in Case No.124/2021 U/s 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending before the Family Court Khatima, U.S. Nagar. That all the cases are settled between the parties on the following terms:-
(i)That a demand draft of Rs.3,60,000/- will be handed over to Laxmi Biswas by Amit Kumar Biswas on the next date of hearing.
(ii)That Amit Kumar Biswas will return the marriage ring on the next date of hearing.
(iii)That Laxmi Biswas will not asks for the gifts given by her in the marriage and other items.
(iv)That the items of the stridhan will remain with the Laxmi Biswas.
Note:- That both the parties will withdraw other cases which they have filed against each other in the various courts.”
Learned counsel for the applicants, based on the compromise dated 07.08.2024, which is duly recorded in the order sheet of the Daily Lok Adalat dated 07.08.2024, would submit that the parties to the matrimony—applicant No. 2/husband (Amit Kumar Biswas) and respondent No. 2 (Laxmi Biswas)—have already settled their disputes amicably, and hence, no useful purpose would be served by letting the matter travel any further.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is ad idem with the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. R.K. Joshi, submits that since the matter is a matrimonial dispute and the parties have already settled their disputes amicably, he has no objection if the matter is put to quietous by quashing the proceedings based on the compromise.
Since the parties have already compromised the matter and their dispute emanates from matrimonial discord, no useful purpose would be served by letting the matter proceed further. In this regard, reference needs to be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675. Para 10 of the said judgment is being extracted hereunder for ready reference:
“10.In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] 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 such view of the matter, since the parties have already settled their disputes amicably and the compromise has already been signed by the parties before the Daily Lok Adalat on 7th August 2024, the criminal miscellaneous application deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed.
In the interest of justice, the charge sheet dated 25.07.2022, summoning order dated 05.01.2023, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 40 of 2023 (FIR No. 54 of 2022) under Sections 323, 498A, 504, and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar, pending before the Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.