IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed its authority to quash criminal proceedings under Article 142 when genuine settlements exist, prioritizing complete justice over procedural continuance.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-482) No.26 of 2016 by which the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 05.01.2016; charge sheet dated 17.11.2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.60 of 2016 (State v. Jitu Kar and others) initiated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 pending before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IInd, Dehradun, was dismissed by the High Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the respective private parties as well as learned counsel for the respondent-State at length.

4. It is not in dispute that the marriage between appellant No.2 and respondent No.2 took place on 05.12.2012. There was an ex-parte decree of divorce granted by the concerned Family Court on 18.10.2014. In the interregnum, against appellant no.2, a complaint was filed by respondent No.2 on 09.08.2014 on the basis of which an FIR was registered on 06.04.2015, subsequent to the decree of divorce being passed by the Family Court. It is pertinent to observe that pursuant to the decree of divorce, both appellant No.2 as well as respondent No.2 have re-married and are leading their independent lives.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellants herein sought quashing of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 herein as well as all proceedings initiated pursuant to the said complaint by filing their application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The High Court however, dismissed the said application.

6. Hence, the learned counsel for the respective parties have made their submissions in the above back drop of the aforesaid facts.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that having regard to the fact that both the parties have been divorced and have re-married, no purpose would be served by respondent No.2 seeking to prosecute the criminal case as against the appellants herein. He submitted that it is only after the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court that regarding the complaint made by respondent No.2 that a FIR was filed i.e., when she was not the wife of the appellant No.2. That it was subsequent to the divorce decree that the FIR was registered and criminal proceedings against the appellants have commenced.

He further submitted that there are judgments of this Court which are to the effect that such complaints and criminal proceedings could be quashed under Article 142 of the Constitution. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India could be exercised so as to do complete justice between the parties. That this is one of the cases where this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and grant relief to the appellants herein by quashing the complaint, FIR and all consequential proceedings pursuant thereto. Learned counsel also submitted that in order to do justice to the respondent No.2 herein, the appellant No.2/husband is willing to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in full and final settlement on her all alleged claims though there are in fact no claims as such made by her before any Court of law as of now. Hence, the appeal may be allowed.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the complaints were well justified having regard to the acts and omissions of the appellants herein. The divorce decree granted on 18.10.2014 is also an ex-parte decree and the same is now sought to be undone by filing of an application which is pending consideration.

Learned counsel Ms. Christi Jain however, submitted that appellant No.2 and respondent No.2 herein have re-