Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 1657
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Neeraj Gupta & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2019, 125 of 2019; Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10312 of 2018, 10313 of 2018
Decided On : 18-01-2019
P.K. Jain, Adv., Saurabh Jain, Adv., P.K. Goswami, Adv., S.P. Singh Rathore, Adv., Ashok K Sharma, Adv., Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv., Anuradha Soni Verma, Adv., Shryansh Aggarwal, Adv., H. Arjun, Adv., Saurabh Trivedi, Adv., Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Rajesh Goyal, Adv.
The settlement of a matrimonial dispute between the parties can affect the criminal proceedings, and the court has the jurisdiction to quash the conviction and allow the appeal based on such settlement.
Headnote:
Compoundable Offenses - Matrimonial Dispute - The court quashed the conviction and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction awarded by the Trial court, as the matrimonial dispute between the parties had been settled and the spouses had amicably parted ways.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a Criminal Appeal against the order of conviction under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. The Family Court decreed Original Suit No. 283 of 2017 under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 based on a settlement between the parties. A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 together with an application for compounding. The High Court dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matrimonial dispute between the parties had been settled and the spouses had amicably parted ways, therefore, there was no useful purpose to be served in pursuing the criminal prosecution any further.
Issues: The main issue was whether the charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and the Penal Code were compoundable with the permission of the Court, and whether the settlement of the matrimonial dispute between the parties should affect the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the conviction and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction awarded by the Trial court, as the matrimonial dispute between the parties had been settled and the spouses had amicably parted ways.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeals by setting aside the conviction awarded by the Trial court and allowed the criminal appeal, quashing the criminal proceedings.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Against the order of conviction under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ("Penal Code") with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on 9 March 2016, a Criminal Appeal was filed by the appellants. The appellants have been released on bail. The appellants are respectively the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the second respondent. In the meantime, on 18 December 2017, the Family Court at Haridwar decreed Original Suit No. 283 of 2017 under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 on the basis of a settlement between the parties. A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 together with an application for compounding. The High Court dismissed the petition by its judgment and order dated 29 June 2018.
3. The case of the appellants in these proceedings is that the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 are compoundable and the charges under Sections 498A & 323 of the Penal Code are compoundable with the permission of the Court.
4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab & Anr.,2010 14 SCC 303. It is stated that during the pendency of the appeal, parties have settled the dispute under which the first appellant has paid an amount of Rs. 6.25 lakhs to respondent no. 2 towards permanent alimony. Pursuant thereto, a decree for divorce has been passed.
5. Notice was issued on 7 December 2018. Both the State and the second/wife have been served and have entered appearance. It is stated before this Court that the dispute between first appellant and second respondent has been settled; a decree of divorce has been passed by the competent court and an amount of Rs.6.25 lakhs had been paid over to respondent no. 2 as agreed. The criminal case essentially arose out of a matrimonial dispute between the first appellant and second respondent. The matrimonial dispute has been settled and the spouses have amicably parted ways. Hence, we see no useful purpose to be served in pursuing the criminal prosecution any further.
6. We, accordingly, issue the following directions in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. We may record that, apart from learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the State and the second respondent also have no objection since the dispute between first appellant and second respondent has been settled in terms of the decree of divorce and payment of alimony made.
7. We, accordingly, dispose of these appeals by setting aside the conviction awarded by the Trial court on 9 March 2016. Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2016 pending before the Sessions Court at Haridwar shall accordingly stand allowed and the criminal proceedings shall stand quashed.
8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
