AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
By the present application, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicants are seeking to quash First Information Report (FIR) No. 178/2024 registered with Police Station Wathoda, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 504, 498A, 324 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequent Charge-sheet bearing RCC No. 2312/2024 pending on the file of 5th Jt. CJJD & JMFC, Nagpur (Court No.3) against the applicants on account of settlement.
The brief facts of the case, as per the FIR, are as under:-
Applicant no. 1 is the husband, applicant nos.4, 6, 8 and 9 are the brother-in-laws, applicant nos. 5 and 7 are the sister-in-law, applicant no.10 is the mother-in-law of the complainant/non-applicant no.2. Applicant no.2 is the colleague of applicant no.1 and applicant no.3 is the husband of applicant no.2. The marriage of applicant no.1 and the complainant was solemnized on 13.12.2022. Thereafter, the complainant went to reside at her matrimonial house. After the marriage, the relatives of applicant no.1 i.e. applicant nos. 4 to 10 used to show their ownership on the gift received by the complainant in her marriage. Applicant no.1 at the instance of applicant nos. 2 and 3 used to assault the complainant. Applicant no.3 used to behave indecently with the complainant. Hence, on account of the frustration caused and harassment endured, the complainant left her matrimonial house.
ii) Later, the complainant was brought back to her matrimonial house by the brother of applicant no.1. Thereafter, the complainant started residing with applicant no.1 at Nagpur. Since, the harassment continued and even went to the extent that applicant no.1 tried to strangle the complainant’s neck. Hence, on 29.03.2024 the complainant lodged the complaint against the applicants and the aforesaid offence came to be registered against the applicants.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the charge-sheet.
This application for quashing is made on account of the settlement entered into between the parties. It appears from the order dated 26.03.2026 that the complainant appeared personally before the Court and filed her affidavit-in-reply. The affidavit depicts that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Applicant no.1 and the complainant have decided to part their ways by filing a petition for mutual divorce. It is contended in the affidavit by the complainant that she wants to withdraw the report lodged against all the applicants, she has no grievance against the applicants and she is not interested to proceed in the present crime.
It appears that, a total amount of Rs.12 lakhs was to be received by the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the settlement. The complainant had received Rs.5 lakhs as per the order dated 26.03.2026 and Rs.7 lakhs was yet to be received. Therefore, this Court by order dated 26.03.2026 adjourned the matter and the complainant was permitted to appear before this Court through Video Conferencing (VC) on the next date of hearing.
As on today, the complainant appeared through the VC and she is duly identified by Shri S. P. Pedam, learned counsel. The complainant submits that an amount of Rs.7 lakhs has already been deposited by the applicants before the Family Court, Chandauli. The xerox copy of the Demand Draft has been tendered across the bar by the applicants which is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. On enquiry, the complainant reiterated the contents of the affidavit and admits to the settlement between the parties.
The learned APP raised objection to the settlement arrived between the parties on the ground that the offence registered against the applicants is non-compoundable in nature. Hence, the parties cannot settle the dispute among themselves.
With regards to the compoundability of offence, the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, [(2014) 6 SCC 466] has observed that “power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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”.
Reliance can also be placed on the decision in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], wherein the Supreme Court in para no. 14 has held as under:-
“14.There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860.”
In the present case, the dispute is of a private nature arising out of matrimonial discord. It also does not involve any issue affecting the society at large. It is a matrimonial dispute and the applicants and the complainant have amicably resolved it. Hence, the possibility of the prosecution culminating to conviction appears to be remote. The complainant and applicant no. 1 have decided to part their ways to move on in their life and have filed for divorce by mutual consent. The continuation of prosecution will be a hindrance for the complainant in leading a peaceful life. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose. Therefore, in my view, this is a fit case for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
The application is allowed.
ii) FIR No. 178/2024 registered with Police Station Wathoda, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 506, 504, 498A, 324 r/w. 34 of the IPC and consequent Charge-sheet bearing RCC No. 2312/2024 pending on the file of 5th Jt. CJJD & JMFC, Nagpur (Court No.3) are hereby quashed qua the applicants subject of deposit of total costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) in “Public Welfare Fund” with Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur having account no. 129712010001014 and IFSC Code UBIN0812978 by the applicants.
iii) Rule is made absolute in the above-said terms.