IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Narinder Singh Saini - Appellant
Versus
State and ors. - Respondents
CRMC No. 200 of 2014, MP No. 227 of 2014
Decided on : 24-05-2018
Abuse of Process of Law - Quashing of FIRs - Section 498-A, 109, 406 RPC, Sections 294, 354, 341, 34 RPC, Sections 341, 109, 500, 506 RPC - The court discussed the abuse of process of law and the settlement of matrimonial disputes through mutual consent, leading to the quashing of FIRs under various sections.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks quashment of FIRs filed by the respondent No. 3, alleging false and flimsy grounds against the petitioner and his family members. The parties settled their dispute through a mutual Decree of Divorce passed by the Matrimonial Court, Jammu. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 were unable to reconcile, leading to the dissolution of their marriage through a Decree of Divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had settled their disputes through mutual consent and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The court also noted that there was no chance of conviction in the criminal cases lodged by respondent No. 3.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings required quashing, considering the settlement of matrimonial disputes through mutual consent and the abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. The court also emphasized the duty to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the discretion to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases to meet the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIRs along with all the proceedings initiated thereafter, considering the settlement of matrimonial disputes through mutual consent and the absence of prospect for conviction in the criminal cases.
1. In the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR’s, which have been filed by the respondent No. 3, namely, Deepika Saini on false and flimsy grounds against the petitioner and his family members. As the said FIRs are the abuse of process of law and the parties have finally settled their dispute through a mutual Decree of Divorce passed by the Additional District Judge, Matrimonial Court, Jammu through a judgment decree dated 14th November, 2013. The details of the FIR’s are as under:-
1. FIR No. 12/2011 dated 31st May, 2011 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu for the offence under Sections 498-A, 109 and 406 RPC. At present, the case is pending disposal before the Railway Magistrate, Jammu.
2. FIR No. 108/2013 dated 04th May, 2013 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for the offence under Sections 294, 354, 341 and 34 RPC. At present, the case is pending disposal before the Railway Magistrate, Jammu.
3. FIR No. 73/2012 dated 10th July, 2012, registered at Police Station Gangyal, Jammu for the offence under Sections 341, 109, 500 and 506 RPC. At present, the case is pending disposal before the Railway Magistrate, Jammu.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner and respondent No. 3, namely, Deepika Saini were the husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized at Jammu on 22nd November, 2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, the parties hardly stayed together for fifteen days and thereafter, they started residing separately, as they were unable to live together as husband and wife due to their differences in attitude and temperaments. Out of the wedlock, no issue has been born.
3. It is stated in the petition that despite the sincere efforts made by the relatives of both sides, the parties could not reconcile with each other. Finally, the parties mutually agreed and decided to dissolve their marriage on the memorandum of understanding. It has been settled between the parties that the petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs in the Court to be paid to the respondent No. 3 on account of permanent alimony. Both the parties will return their articles of marriage as per the list exchanged by the parties and the respondent shall not claim any maintenance from the petitioner and the respondent shall also withdraw all cases criminal/civil filed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner and his family members after passing of the decree of divorce by mutual consent.
4. It is also stated in the petition that a petition u/s 15 of Hindu Marriage Act (Annexure-P) was filed by both the parties before the Matrimonial Court, Jammu, stating therein all the terms and conditions of their settlement. The statements of both the parties were recorded before the Matrimonial Court and the case was posted to be listed after six months. Again the statements of both the parties were recorded by the Matrimonial Court and they stick to their stand and finally their statement was recorded by the Hon’ble Court.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid petition, i.e., petition filed u/s 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the statement of the parties, the petitioner deposited Rs. 5.00 lacs in the Matrimonial Act and the same has been released in favour of respondent no. 3 by the Trial Court. In the petition u/s 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in the statement of the petitioner and respondent, she categorically stated that everything has been settled between the petitioner and his family members, nothing more is due to her and she would withdraw all the cases stated in the title of the petition, filed by her against the petitioner and his members, which are pending disposal before the Railway Magistrate, Jammu.
6. Perusing the statements of the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the marriage between the parties has been dissolved through a Decree of Divorce u/s 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent has been passed
Ram Singh & anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 11 (2005) DMC 412
Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another
B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another
Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra
Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. vs. State of Orissa
Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.
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.