IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes if the parties have mutually settled their issues, ensuring justice and preventing abuse of the court process.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY KUMAR, J.

1. This revisional application has been preferred under Section 482 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the Shibpur Police Station Case No.1261 of 2014 dated 12.12.2013 and charge-sheet being No.29/15 dated 07.01.2015 filed under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862 (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) corresponding G.R. Case No. 10076 of 2013 pending before the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, on the ground that the continuance of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of court after grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent and in light of the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings made by his mother-in-law Sampa Mukherjee, on affidavit, in CRAN 1 of 2017 (Old No. CRAN 5048 of 2017).

2. The facts as frescoed in the revisional application are that the petitioner Sadndipan Mukherjee and other party No. 2 Mou @ Moumita Mukherjee (Samanta) are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 03rd March, 2013, as per Hindu rites and customs, and it was duly consummated by cohabitation. Due to temperamental differences, she abandoned her matrimonial home on 12th December, 2013, taken shelter at her father’s house and she lodged a written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Shibpur Police Station, in one go, wherein she alleged that petitioner used to abuse her in intoxicated condition, tortured her physically and mentally and compelled her to bring money from his father’s house, upon which Shibpur Police Station Case No.1261 of 2013 dated 12.12.2013 under Sections 498A/406 was started against the petitioner. After investigation, it was charge-sheeted vide No.29/15 dated 27.01.2015 under Sections 498A/406 of IPC to the Ld. C.J.M Howrah, who had taken cognizance of the offences, thereupon. As a result, GR Case being No.10076 of 2013 under Sections 498A/406 of I.P.C, was started therefrom. This case is still pending for recording of evidence and witness of complainant O.P 2 before learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th court Howrah, as it appears from the status report submitted by Ld. Counsel for the State submitted in compliance of the order and direction dated 25th January, 2024.

3. In the meantime, good sense prevailed between the parties, to come forward to settle their matrimonial discord mutually. Accordingly, they made a joint prayer for divorce on mutual ground by filing a petition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, upon which MAT Suit No.1055 of 2015, was instituted and disposed of by the order of divorce on mutual consent granted on 23rd March, 2016 by Ld. Additional District Judge 4th Court, Howrah, whereby both parties were absolved from their all-marital obligations, liabilities and allegations. Despite that GR Case No.10076 of 2013, arising out of the allegations of O.P 2 while they were in matrimonial relationship, which had already been dissolved on mutual consent, remained pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Howrah.

4. Pendency of the said criminal proceeding despite the settlement of their matrimonial dispute, triggered the petitioner to pray for quashing of Shibpur Police Station Case No.1261 of 2013, and charge sheet charge-sheet being No.29/15 dated 27.01.2015, corresponding GR Case being No.10076 of 2013 under Sections 498A/406 of I.P.C, in this revisional application.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that continuation of GR Case 10076 of 2013, arising out of the matrimonial dispute, even after its disposal on mutual consent granted by Ld. Additional District Judge, 4th Court Howrah in MAT Suit No.1055 of 2015 on 23rd March, 2016, amount to abuse of the process of the court because the decree of divorce on mutual consent terminated all sort of relationships and resolved all types of disputes arising out of dissolved marital bondage.

6. Therefore, he submits that since the parties have amicably resolved their differences, the conti