The duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the importance of preserving marriage sanctity and demonstrating justice by compounding the offence.

The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence in connection with case No. PRC 164 of 2016 under Sections 498A/307/323/506 of the IPC which is now pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bishalgarh, Sepahijala.

2. Heard Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent.

3. Smt. Silpi Datta, being the wife of Subal Datta, the informant-petitioner no. 1 lodged one ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Amtali police station on 07.08.2016 who later on registered a case vide Amtali PS case no. 112 of 2016 under Sections 498(A), 307, 325, 109, 506 of the Indian Penal Code against her husband, petitioner no. 1, her brother-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 respectively and after investigation, the police had submitted charge sheet. It is also informed that no charge has been framed and the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bishalgarh has committed the case before the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.

4. During the continuation of the proceeding before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bishalgarh, they have arrived at a compromise and Smt. Silpi Datta, the wife does not want to proceed further in the criminal case and she has prayed for compounding the said offence as well as to quash the entire proceeding under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

5. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the petitioners submit that for the last one year, the complainant-petitioner and the husband-petitioner are residing together and enjoying the peaceful conjugal life, and to make further bondage between the petitioners, it is necessary to compound the offence allegedly committed by the husband-petitioner no.1 along with others. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has invited my attention that both the husband and the wife have submitted a joint affidavit to the effect that out of some misunderstanding, the respondent-wife had lodged a complaint against her husband and other in-laws before the police station, while, at present they are leading their conjugal life happily and peacefully. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has further submitted that attending the court proceeding on relevant dates is causing immense hardship for the accused persons. As such, compounding the offence under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of urgent necessity to preserve the family harmony of both the husband and the wife. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has placed reliance to a decision of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 wherein in paragraph 11, 12, 13 and 15, the Apex Court has discussed the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. in resolving the matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife, which is as under:-

“11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692, it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.

12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that