Back
2006(3) JLJ 315
A.K. Gohil, J.
Mahendra Singh and others v. State of M.P. and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1375 of 2006;
Decided on 15.9.2006
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.482 and 320(2) -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 498A -- matter compromised outside Court -- complainant wife living with husband -- promise to live peacefully also made -- FIR/complaint may be quashed under inherent power considering delicacy of relations.
Criminal Case No. 138/04 is pending in the Court of ACJM, Gwalior, for the offences under section 498A of IPC. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal cases both the parties entered into compromise and they have settled their dispute outside the Court and have started living together as husband and wife and now they have no dispute between them and they both have filed separate applications under section 320(2) CrPC in the trial Court for permission to record compromise and to drop the proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the compromise. Petitioners also filed an application under section 311, CrPC for recalling the respondent No.2 in the light of the compromise but the trial Court has not accepted the same holding that the offence under section 498A of IPC is not compoundable under sub-section (2) of section 320 of CrPC and also dismissed the application under section 311, CrPC for recalling and recross-examination tiled by the petitioners, against which petitioners have tiled this petition under section 482, CrPC. [Para 2
Held : In the instant case, as has been submitted by the parties that they have compromised their matrimonial dispute and they both have started living together and have also assured this Court that in future too they will live peacefully as husband and wife and looking to these special features that the wife has started living with the husband, which she has admitted before me in open Court, in such circumstances there is every likelihood that the wife will not support the complaint in the criminal case and there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted for the offences, the contentions pleaded by the parties before this Court can be accepted and complaint can be quashed. In fact under these circumstances, it primafacie appears that the trial Court has also committed illegality in not allowing the application which was filed under section 311, CrPC for recalling and recross-examination with the wife under the changed circumstances. In such family disputes trial Court should understand the delicacy of the relations, that at any stage good sense may prevail upon the parties and they may enter into compromise, or withdraw the complaint, and for that they may pray for recalling and recross-examination of the complainant or the witnesses. Therefore, in such matters trial Court should have liberal approach and normally permission should be granted and should also encourage the parties to settle their lives by resolving their disputes. 2003(1) MPWN 145 (SC), (1977)2 SCC 699 and 1988(I) MPWN 225 (SC) followed. [Para 7
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 311 rFkk 320 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 498d && le>kSrk rFkk ifjoknh&iRuh dh iqu% izfrijh{kk ds fy, vkosnu Qkby fd;k x;k && ifjofrZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vuqKkr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 rFkk 320¼2½ && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 498d && ekeys dk U;k;ky; ds ckgj le>kSrk && ifjoknh&iRuh ifr ds lkFk fuokl djus yxh && ‘kkafriwoZd jgus dk opu Hkh fn;k x;k && laca/kksa dh utkd ij fopkj djrs gq, izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ@ifjokn varfuZfgr ‘kfDr;ksa ds v/khu vfHk[kafM fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] Xokfy;j ds U;k;ky; esa naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 498d ds v/khu nkafMd ekeyk Ø- 138@04 yafcr gSA ;g fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd nkafMd ekeys ds yafcr jgus ds nkSjku nksuksa i{kdkjksa ds chp le>kSrk gks x;k rFkk mUgksaus viuk fookn U;k;ky; ds ckgj fuiVk fy;k rFkk ifr&iRuh dh Hkk¡fr lkFk jgus yxs gSa rFkk vc muds chp dksbZ fookn ugha gS rFkk nksuksa us le>kSrk vfHkfyf[kr djus vkSj le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij ;kfp;ksa ds fo:) dk;Zokgh lekIr djus ds fy, naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 320¼2½ ds v/khu i`Fkd~ vkosnu Qkby fd, gSaA ;kfp;ksa us le>kSrs dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, izR;FkhZ Ø-2 dks iqu% cqykus ds fy, naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 311 ds v/khu Hkh vkosnu Qkby fd;k fdarq fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gq, mls xzg.k ugha fd;k fd naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 498d ds v/khu vijk/k naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 320 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds v/khu ‘keuh; ugha gS rFkk ;kphx.k }kjk iqu% cqyk, tkus vkSj izfr&ijh{kk fd, tkus ds fy, naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 311 ds v/khu vkosnu Hkh [kkfjt dj fn;k ftlds fo:) ;kphx.k us naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu ;g ;kfpdk Qkby dh gSA ¼iSjk 2
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl ekeys esa tSlk fd i{kdkjksa }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd mUgksaus vius nkaiR; fookn esa le>kSrk dj fy;k gS rFkk og nksuksa lkFk jgus yxs gSa rFkk mUgksaus bl U;k;ky; dks vk‘oklu fn;k gS fd Hkfo"; esa Hkh os ifr&iRuh dh Hkk¡fr ‘kkafriwoZd jgsaxs rFkk bu fo‘ks"k y{k.kksa dks ns[krs gq, fd iRuh us vius ifr ds lkFk jguk izkjaHk dj fn;k gS] tks fd mlus esjs le{k [kqys U;k;ky; esa Lohd`r fd;k gS] ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g izR;sd laHkkO;rk gS fd iRuh nkafMd ekeys esa ifjokn dk leFkZu ugha djsxh rFkk vfHk;qDr dh mu vijk/kksa ds fy, nks"kflf) dh dksbZ ;qfDr;qDr laHkkO;rk ugha Fkh] i{kdkjksa }kjk bl U;k;ky; ds le{k vfHkopfur fuosnu xzg.k fd, tk ldrs gSa rFkk ifjokn vfHk[kafMr fd;k tk ldrk gSA oLrqr% ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] izFken`"V~;k izrhr gksrk gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; us og vkosnu esatwj ugha djus esa voS/krk dh gS ftls ifjofrZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa iRuh dks iqu% cqykus rFkk mldh iqu% izfrijh{kk djus ds fy, Qkby fd;k x;k FkkA ,sls nkaiR; fooknksa esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks laca/kksa dh uktqdrk dks le>uk pkfg, fd fdlh Hkh izØe ij i{kdkjksa dks ln~cqf) vk ldrh gS rFkk os le>kSrk dj ldrs gSa ;k ifjokn okil ys ldrs gSa] vkSj mlds fy, og ifjoknh ;k lkf{k;ksa dks iqu% cqykus vkSj iqu% izfrijh{kk djus ds fy, izkFkZuk dj ldrs gSaA vr% ,sls ekeyksa esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk mnkj :[k gksuk pkfg, rFkk lkekU;r% vuqKk iznku dh tkuk pkfg, rFkk i{kdkjksa dks vius fookn lqy>k dj viuk thou clk ysus ds fy, izksRlkfgr Hkh djuk pkfg,A 2003¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l ¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼1997½2 ,l lh lh 699 rFkk 1988¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 225 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 7
Gohil, J. -- 1. The petitioners, who are husband, brother-in-law, parents and sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 wife, have filed this petition under section 482 CrPC against the order dated 21.3.2006 and for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 138/04 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, for the offences under section 498A, IPC.
2. In nutshell the case of the petitioners is that the marriage of petitioner No.1 Mahendra Singh with respondent No.2 Smt. Sunita took place on 29.1.2003 as per the Hindu customs and rites at Dabra. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are brothers-in-law (jeth and devar), petitioner No.4 is father-in-law and petitioner No.5 is mother-in-law and petitioner No.6 is sister-in-law (jethani) of the respondent No.2 wife. On 18.7.2004 the respondent No.2 wife lodged FIR at Mahila Police Station Padav, District Gwalior, against the petitioners that they used to harass, demand dowry, beat her and practise cruelty with her. On the basis of the report a criminal case was registered against the petitioners and after investigation, challan was tiled and Criminal Case No. 138/04 is pending in the Court of ACJM, Gwalior, for the offences under section 498A of IPC. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal cases both the parties entered into compromise and they have settled their dispute outside the Court and have started living together as husband and wife and now they have no dispute between them and they both have tiled separate applications under section 320(2) CrPC in the trial Court for permission to record compromise and to drop the proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the compromise. Petitioners also tiled an application under section 311, CrPC for recalling the respondent No.2 in the light of the compromise but the trial Court has not accepted the same holding that the offence under section 498A of IPC is not compoundable under sub-section (2) of section 320 of CrPC and also dismissed the application under section 311, CrPC for recalling and recross-examination tiled by the petitioners, against which petitioners have filed this petition under section 482, CrPC.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner-husband and respondent-wife both are present before me and they have stated on affidavit that they have settled their dispute and they have started living together. They have also promised that in future too they will live peacefully. Both the parties have tiled their own affidavits and have prayed that under inherent powers compromise be accepted and charge-sheet be quashed and for that placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [2003(1) MPWN 145=2003(2) Crimes 284 (SC)].
4. After considering the rival contention, the question for determination is whether High Court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 of CrPC and under the facts and circumstances of the case can quash the criminal proceedings or the FIR or the complaint regarding non-compounding offences in view of the bar created under section 320 of CrPC.
5. In the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (supra), Supreme Court has held:
"The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint regarding non-compoundable offences and section 320 of Criminal P.C., 1973 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under section 482 of CrPC."
The Supreme Court after considering the decision in the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977)2 SCC 699], recording the scope of inherent powers under section 482 of CrPC and also the decision in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre and others [1988(1) MPWN 225=(1988)1 SCC 692] and the observations made by the Supreme Court, though in a different context in G. V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others [(2000)3 SCC 692], in para 14 and 15 has held as under:
"14. There is no doub
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
