Dilip Das And Anr. vs State Of Assam

Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner No. 1, Dilip Das and petitioner No. 2, Runima Das. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar,

learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent No. 1.

By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC., the petitioners, who are husband and wife, have prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR,

dated 14.05.2013, whereupon the All Women P.S. Case No. 98/2013 under Sections 498A/506 of the IPC has been registered.Â

It is seen that the petition is supported by an affidavit sworn by the petitioner No. 1, in respect of the averments made in the petition declaring that

he is duly authorized by his wife, the petitioner No. 2, to file the petition.

The petitioners’ case, in a nutshell, is that they got married on 30.01.1997 and out of their wedlock, two daughters, namely, Banita Das and

Sunita Das were born. The petitioner No. 2 lodged an FIR, on 14.05.2013Â against the petitioner No. 1, alleging cruelty perpetrated on her. The said

FIR was registered as All Women P.S. Case No. 98/2013 under Sections 498A/506 of the IPC, dated 14.05.2013.

The petitioners have stated that presently they are living together peacefully as husband and wife along with their daughters and they have amicably

resolved their differences. However, recently on 02.06.2018, the police from All Women P.S. Visited the residence of the petitioners, when the

petitioner No. 1 was absent and, as such, the police asked the petitioner No. 2 to produce her husband at the police station. On 03.06.2018, the

petitioner No. 2, herself, went to the police station and requested the officer-in-charge of the said Police Station to close the case, as both of them

have resolved their differences, but she was asked to produce the petitioner No. 2. The petitioners have further averred in the petition that due to

apprehension that the petitioner No. 1 may likely to be arrested in the event of his appearance at the police station, in connection with the case as the

offence under Section 498A of the IPC is a non-bailable offence. It is also averred that the investigation in the case is yet to be completed. Hence, the

instant petition is filed with prayer as stated above.

Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the dispute between the petitioners-husband and wife relates to their domestic

differences and such a dispute, is permitted to be amicably resolved in the light of the guidelines laid by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and

others -Vs- State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and resultantly, an F.I.R, which is registered under non-compoundable offence of Section

498 A IPC can be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. Mr. Choudhury further refers to a case of

Smt. Daggupati Jayalakshmi -Vs- the State, reported in 1993 Crl. L. J. 3162, wherein Karnataka High Court permitted compounding of offence under

Section 498 A between husband and wife.

Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Public Prosecutor, Assam, submits that as both the petitioners husband and wife have settled their

differences amicably and resumed their conjugal life with their two daughters, it is in the interest of securing justice and to prevent abuse of process of

law that the F.I.R. should be quashed.

In Narinder Singh case (supra), the Apex Court held as herein below extracted:-

“29.2When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in

such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.â€​

In Gian Singh -Vs- State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court held as follows:-

“Offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to

dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may

quash criminal proceedings. High Court, in such cases, must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the

criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between

parties and whether to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case is put to an end.â€​

In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindi and Anr. Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, the Apex Court held as

follows:-

“A proceeding may be quashed, if the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by

allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. This is because otherwise the parties and the witnesses will be dragged to Court and process of the Court

will be abused for no purpose. When the parties have already entered into compromise, even if they are dragged to Court as witnesses, there is every

likelihood of their turning back from the allegations and in that event, the learned Court will be left with no other alternative but to acquit the accused

person. In that event, there will be unnecessary engagement of valuable judicial time and so taking a practical view of the matter, it appears to be

proper to accept the reality and to put an end to the ongoing litigation.â€​

On consideration of the averments made in the petition and hearing the learned counsel for both sides and further applying the principles laid down

in the above noted cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the dispute, which pertains to domestic differences, is amicably settled

between the husband and wife and resumed their conjugal life along with their children, the FIR dated 14.05.2013, whereupon the All Women P.S.

Case No. 98/2013 under Sections 498A/506 of the IPC was registered, needs to be quashed to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of

the process of Court.

Accordingly, the FIR registered as All Women P.S. Case No. 98/2013 under Sections 498A/506 of the IPC is hereby set aside and quashed as

prayed for.Â

With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of.