Courts must quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where there are mutual settlements, as continued prosecution may constitute an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 23.12.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with G.R. No.4047 of 2019 arising out of Pirbahore P.S. Case No.297 of 2019, whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 34 1, 323, 504, 506 and 498-A read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) against the petitioner.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Jyoti Kaur/informant of the case submitted a written report to the OfÏcer-in-charge of Pirbahore Police Station stating therein that her husband, namely, Ravi Saluza (petitioner) used to treat her badly and threatened to her life. The informant has two children out of the said wedlock but, her husband does not bear the expenses of their study. On being asked, her husband suggest to bring the money from her parents, whereas her husband is earning well and working as an Event Manager. She further alleged in the written report that in the morning when she asked for money to purchase the vegetables, he assaulted her badly and when her mother came in rescue, she was also assaulted by him. She further alleged that her mother-in-law and father-in-law also supported the act of their son.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that marriage between the parties now stands dissolved under their mutual consent as provisioned under Section 13B(1) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955. During course of argument, learned counsel referred to para ‘7’ of the judgment of divorce as passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial case No. 107 of 2020, which is as under:

“7. Therefore, from the foregoing discussions, Court comes to the conclusion that both petitioner and opposite party are entitled to get decree of divorce on their mutual consent under Section 13-B of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT and accordingly, the marriage solemnized on 10.11.2008, between both the parties is liable to be dissolved by decree of divorce on mutual consent as payed for, It is therefore.

ORDERED

that the matrimonial case be and the same is hereby decreed in terms of section 13-B of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955. The marriage between the petitioner no.1, Ravi Saluja and petitioner no.2, Jyoti Kaur solemnized on 10.11.2008, is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent.”

5. In view of aforesaid context, it is also submitted by learned counsel that petitioner has paid maintenance amount of Rs.11 lakhs to O.P. No.2 as one time settlement by way of permanent alimony and also paid cash of Rs.5 lakhs in favour of her daughter, and as such all dispute between the parties appears settled.

6. In view of aforesaid, it is submitted by learned counsel that continuing with present criminal proceeding qua petitioner before learned trial court would only amount to abusing the process of court of law, and, therefore, same be quashed. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083 .

7. It would be apposite to reproduce para 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 of the Abhishek’s case (supra), which reads as under:

“13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahk