AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No.901/2021, dated 26.10.2021, registered with Police Station, Old City Akola, District Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and consequent chargesheet No.73/2026, dated 16.03.2026.
The FIR indicates that applicant No.1 is the husband, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law, applicant No.4 is the sister-in-law, applicant No.5 is the husband of the sister-in-law and applicant No.6 is the wife of the brother-in-law of non-applicant No.2/complainant. Marriage between applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 was solemnized on 13.05.2012. After the marriage, non-applicant No.2 started residing in her matrimonial house with the applicants. The applicants started harassing non-applicant No.2 on account of not bringing dowry from her parental house. Once, non-applicant No.2 was expelled from her matrimonial house by the applicants and therefore, she had to go to her parental house. Thereafter, non-applicant No.2 was blessed with a daughter. Applicant No.1, then made a phone call to the mother of non-applicant No.2 and brought her back to his house. However, the applicants again started harassing her by demanding an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs as dowry. The said amount was paid by non-applicant No.2 to the applicants. Meanwhile, the couple was blessed with another daughter; on that count also, the applicants harassed non-applicant No.2. Eventually, applicant No.1 deserted non-applicant No.2 and started residing with the applicants. On the complaint of non-applicant No.2, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against all the applicants.
Non-applicant No.2 is personally present in the Court today. She is duly identified by her counsel. Learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2 tendered a joint affidavit of settlement between the applicants and non-applicant No.2, which is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. In the affidavit, applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have decided to part ways and for that purpose, they filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent at Family Court, Akola.
Non-applicant No.2 reiterated the contentions of the affidavit and also submitted that she has received an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs and the remaining amount of Rs.3.25 Lakhs will be handed over to her on the day of passing of the decree of divorce. She further contended that she has no objection if the FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed.
Considering the fact that the dispute is arising out of a matrimonial discord and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute as well as the fact that applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have decided to part ways to lead their future life peacefully, the pending proceedings may become a hindrance in their peaceful life.
The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, has held as under :
“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 view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :
The Criminal Application is allowed.
FIR No.901/2021, dated 26.10.2021, registered with Police Station, Old City Akola, District Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and consequent chargesheet No.73/2026, dated 16.03.2026, are hereby quashed and set aside against all the applicants.
The applicants shall deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) to the account of “Public Welfare Fund” in Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur having account No.129712010001014 and IFSC Code UBIN0812978, within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.
The criminal application is disposed of. Rule is made absolute.