IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Arun Kumar Jha, J.
Anwar Rashid, S/o Late Khan Saheb Mohammad Rashid – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar and ors. - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.77104 of 2019
Decided On : 13-10-2022
Quashing of FIR - Settlement of Matrimonial Dispute - Indian Penal Code, Sections 323, 325, 498A, 307, Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 3/4
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed for quashing the FIR registered for offenses under the Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act, stating that the dispute had been amicably settled between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the settlement and referred to relevant case laws to conclude that allowing the proceedings to continue would lead to unnecessary harassment and abuse of the court's process.
Issues: Settlement of matrimonial dispute, quashing of FIR, application of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases of matrimonial disputes, if the parties have settled the dispute amicably, the High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR, even if the offenses are non-compoundable.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the entire proceeding arising from the FIR was quashed for the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned APP for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR bearing Hawai Adda P.S. Case No. 53 of 2011, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 498 A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the ground that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with Ain Rashid (petitioner no.5) on 24.03.2009 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Rituals. It is alleged that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to torture and assault for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry by the accused persons, the petitioners herein, leading to filing of the FIR bearing Hawai Adda P.S. Case No.53 of 2011 under Sections 323, 325, 498 (A) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that now full and final settlement has been made between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 and no further dispute remains between the parties. The opposite party no.2 has filed a withdrawal petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna on 09.02.2018 as she does not want to proceed further with this case. A supplementary affidavit giving the details of the settlement with relevant documents as annexures has been filed which includes copy of a joint compromise petition filed before the learned ACJM, Patna and also the copy of the withdrawal petition filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 concedes that all the disputes have been settled and the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further in the matter. She further submits that a counter affidavit admitting the factum of settlement has been filed by the opposite party no.2 which is on record.
6. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has no objection for quashing the FIR as the matter has been amicably settled after compromise between the husband and wife.
7. Perused the records.
8. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur & Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Supreme Court has held that whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and the victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of the principles can be formulated.
9. Though the offences under Sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code are not compoundable, however, Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, as also in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs.Babita Raghuvanshi, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, examined the ambit and scope of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in quashing of the criminal proceeding in non-compoundable offences relating to matrimonial dispute.
10. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra) held in paragraphs No. 15 to 17 as under:-
16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur & Another
B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors.
Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs.Babita Raghuvanshi
B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
In cases of matrimonial disputes, the High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR if the parties have settled the dispute amicably, even if the offenses are non-compoundable.
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes if the parties have settled amicably, emphasizing the importance of encouraging genuine settlements.
In the exercise of power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of offence. Heinous and serious o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.