Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Shankunath Mandal S/o Shambhu Nath – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. M.P. No. 2207 of 2021
Decided On : 12-05-2022
Compromise - Matrimonial Dispute - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash the entire criminal proceeding, including the order taking cognizance, in a case involving charges under Section 494/498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner claimed that a compromise had been reached between the parties, with a substantial amount already paid and the remaining amount ready to be paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a compromise had indeed been reached between the parties, with the petitioner having paid a substantial amount to the complainant and the remaining amount ready to be paid. Considering the nature of the dispute and the fulfillment of the agreement, the court concluded that allowing the matter to continue would amount to an abuse of process of law. The court also referred to relevant judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings, arising from a matrimonial dispute and involving charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act, should be quashed due to the compromise reached between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fulfillment of the compromise agreement, the nature of the dispute being a matrimonial one, and the absence of societal interest in continuing the proceedings. The court also relied on relevant judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, specifically citing the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the order taking cognizance, in the case, based on the fulfillment of the compromise agreement and the absence of societal interest in continuing the matter.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.R. Lochan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Shankar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 24.09.2020 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 444/2020 (Kiriburu Mahila P.S. Case No. 01/2020), pending in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar at Chaibasa.
3. The opposite party no. 2 Minakshi Mandal has lodged complaint against the petitioner and cognizance has been taken under Section 494/498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner.
4. Mr. B.R. Lochan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that compromise has been entered between the parties. He further submits that in terms of the compromise, the petitioner has already paid sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs to opposite party no. 2. He also submits that the bank draft of Rs. 15 Lakhs is ready in the hand of the petitioner, who is present in the Court. He further submits that in terms of the compromise, the remaining amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs shall be paid to opposite party no. 2 by the petitioner after decree of divorce.
5. Mr. Shankar Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 accepts the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on instruction submits that the opposite party no. 2 has already received the amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs. He further submits that opposite party no. 2 is also present in the Court in person and she is ready to accept the bank draft of Rs. 15 Lakhs.
6. Mr. Shankar Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 has identified the opposite party no. 2, who is present in the Court.
7. The petitioner and opposite party no. 2 are present in the Court in person and they have accepted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite party no. 2.
8. The photo copy of bank draft of Rs. 15 Lakhs bearing no. 001122, dated 25.03.2022 has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 31.03.2022. The bank draft of Rs. 15 Lakhs has been handed over to opposite party no. 2 by the petitioner in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and since the petition is arising out of matrimonial dispute and there is no societal interest and in terms of the compromise, the agreement has been fulfilled, to allow this matter to continue will amount to abuse of process of law.
10. In that view of the matter and considering the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 24.09.2020 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 444/2020 (Kiriburu Mahila P.S. Case No. 01/2020), pending in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar at Chaibasa is, hereby, quashed.
11. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute when a compromise has been reached between the parties, a....
The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C based on the compromise between the parties and the fulfillment of the terms of the said compromise, especially when the....
Compromise between parties in marital disputes can result in quashing of criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need to avoid abuse of the judicial process.
Compromise can be accepted in certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences, provided it is verified by the court.
Compromise verified by the trial court can lead to quashing of criminal proceedings, even for cognizable offences, emphasizing judicial efficiency.
The court established that in cases of matrimonial disputes, specific allegations must be made against each accused, and the existence of a compromise can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings....
The power of quashing criminal proceedings in cases of settlement between the parties depends on the nature and gravity of the crime, societal interest, and the possibility of conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
