Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 60
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. N. BASHA
K. Jaiganesh & Others
Versus
Praveena
Crl.O.P. No. 29735 of 2006
Decided On : 04-01-2007
S. S. Mamallan for Petitioner.
P. Kumaresan, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for Respondent.
The duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement of disputes in matrimonial matters and the counterproductivity of a hyper-technical view.
Headnote:
Quashing of Proceedings - Matrimonial Dispute - Sections 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. - B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386, Mohd. Shamin v. Mahid Begum 2005 AIR SCW 332
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them for alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. The parties had entered into an amicable settlement and compromise memo, leading to a request for quashing the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court, relying on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Mohd. Shamin v. Mahid Begum, held that in matrimonial matters, it is the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement of disputes. The court noted that the hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interest of women. Consequently, the proceedings were quashed.
Issues: Quashing of proceedings under Sections 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. in light of the amicable settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty to encourage genuine settlement of disputes in matrimonial matters and highlighted the counterproductivity of a hyper-technical view. It relied on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Mohd. Shamin v. Mahid Begum to quash the proceedings despite Section 498-A being non-compoundable.
Final Decision: The proceedings initiated against the petitioners were quashed, and the court commended the service rendered by the Sole Mediator in facilitating the amicable settlement.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have come forward with this petition for quashing the proceedings initiated against them for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and 506 (11) I.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner (A-1) and the fourth petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that while this Court granted anticipatory bail to the first petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 5032 of 2006 by the order dated 7.2.2006, directed the first petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant to appear before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras with an object of arriving at an amicable settlement as the dispute is between the husband and wife. The learned counsel for the petitioners further brought to the notice of this Court that thereafter, both of them have appeared before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras and Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, Madras High Court, was appointed as the Sole Mediator to receive the dispute between the parties, namely, the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant, his wife. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after several sittings, ultimately, the problem was resolved and both the parties entered into an amicable settlement and compromise memo was signed by them on 4.11.2006. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that thereafter, the compromise arrived between the parties brought to the notice of this Court and it was represented before this Court that the de-facto complainant has no objection for quashing the proceedings initiated on the basis of her complaint for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. This Court recorded the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and also given liberty to the petitioner to move for quashing petition in accordance with law.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386 : (2003) 4 SCC 675 and in Mohd. Shamin v. Mahid Begum 2005 AIR SCW 332 submitted that the proceedings initiated by the de-facto complainant against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. is liable to be quashed as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the two decisions cited supra, in view of the compromise between the parties.
5. When this petition came up for hearing before this Court on 2.1.2007, this Court directed both the parties, viz., the first petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant to be present in the Court. Today, learned counsel for both the parties appeared before this Court with the parties, viz., the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant and the representative of Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, Madras High Court, who is the Sole Mediator, also appeared and the de-facto complainant Mrs. Praveena filed an affidavit stating that they have already compromised as per the terms contained in the compromise memo, dated 4.11.2006. The affidavits filed by the de-facto complainant Mrs. Praveena and the first petitioner read hereunder Affidavit of Praveena
I, Praveena D/o. Prabhakar, Indian aged about 26 years and residing at Plot No. 6, II Floor, Bharathan Towers, Lakshmanasami Salai, and sincerely stated as follows :
1. I am the Respondent herein and I am fully acquainted with the facts of the case.
2. I submit that I got married to the 1st petitioner herein on 22.5.2005 at Bhuvaneswari Kalyana Mandapam, Pudukottai, as per Hindu rites and rituals. There wasn‘t any cordial relationship between myself and the 1st petitioner from the very beginning. There was strained relationship and we did not get along.
3. I sub
