Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 504
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ANOOP V. MOHTA, RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
Shri Natrajan Sundaresan - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 50 OF 2014
Decided on : 18-04-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Palkar I/by Mr. Prasad Kulkarni & Associates
For the Respondent:Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP, Mr. Makrand Kale, Advocate
Important Point - The concerned parties themselves decided to settle the dispute and accordingly reflected the same in the consent terms.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 320 and 482-Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 323, 498-A and 504-Quashing of FIR.-Since parties to matrimonial dispute themselves decided to settle dispute in accordance with consent terms hence FIR liable to be quashed and set aside.
Therefore, in view of the material and the circumstances under which, as counter blast, the FIR was filed and the affidavits placed on record with settlement terms by the parties, that FIR No. 282/2012, registered with Yerwada Police Station, Pune, is required to be set aside and the proceedings arising out of the same, if any.
Anoop V. Mohta, J.
1. The Petitioner-husband has filed this Petition for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing No. 282/2012, registered under Section 498A, 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) with Yerwada Police Station, Pune in the following background: During December, 1993 the Petitioner (husband) met Mrs. Shad Natrajan (nee Masrour) (the wife) (Respondent No.2) who is a Muslim of Iranian origin. They got married in London, U.K. The marriage was registered at Ealing Registration District in UK. In 1994, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 came back to India after the marriage. They have a daughter (15 years) and a son (10 years) from this wedlock.
2. On 5th June, 2012, the Petitioner returned home early and to his utter shock, dismay and disbelief, he caught the wife and Mr. Navjeet Sharma committing adultery. On 18th June, 2012, ironically, instead of taking any action against the wife and her paramour, the Police registered the impugned FIR bearing FIR No. 282/12 under sections 498A, 323 and 504 of IPC against the Petitioner in Yerwada Police Station, based on a complaint filed by the wife. On 27th August 2012, the learned Sessions Court confirmed the interim Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner.
3. The parties have ultimately settled the issues. On 16.12.2016, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, have filed a joint Petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special Marriages Act, 1954 read with Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969.
4. The Petitioner has filed the present Petition on 13.01.2014. Affidavit dated 10.03.2017 is also filed by the wife (respondent No.2) with the specific averments about amicable settlement including the fact of presenting the joint petition for divorce by mutual consent. The Petitioner has also placed on record an affidavit dated 17.04.2017.
5. The Petitioner and respondent No.2 both are present in Court with their counsel and make statement that they have settled the matter and accordingly filed the joint petition for settlement before the Family Court and affidavit in this Court for settlement. Compounding of non-compoundable offences.
6. The offences which are compoundable as contemplated under Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr PC), there is no issue with regard to the passing of an appropriate order based upon the settlement between the parties. The offences which are not compoundable, in the present case like Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, are always a matter of discussion. However, we have to see and consider the facts of the case including the background of litigations, specifically when the same revolve around the matrimonial dispute between the parties. The law in this regard is settled by various decisions. There are various judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court as well as High Court in regard to the power of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or under Section 482 of Cr PC. Matrimonial disputes
7. We are concerned in the present case with the matrimonial dispute and stated offences arising out of the relationship. The following are the cases where in matrimonial matters, though offences are non-compoundable, yet in view of the settlement/compromise/consent decree, the Supreme Court and the High Courts, have passed the compounding/settlement order by invoking Articles 142/226 of the Constitution of India read with 482 of Cr. PC and quash and set aside the respective FIR/criminal proceedings. Some of the judgments of the Supreme Court are as under:
(1) B.S. Joshi and ors v. State of Haryana and anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675, This was a case under Section 498A, 323 and 406 of Criminal Procedure Code.
“12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.”
(2) Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303
“61 ….. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the inter
