Husan Lal and others vs State of U.P.and another

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Husan Lal, Roshan Lal and Smt. Santosh with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No 2226 of 2001 under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and section 3/4 of the D.P. Act pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Muzaffarnagar.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that in the present case O.P. No. 2 Smt. Rashmi W/o applicant No. 1 Husan Lal entered into a compromise and they have decided to live separately, their divorce petition has been allowed under the terms other compromise. The applicant No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 are young persons, O.P. No. 2 is having no objection in quashing the proceedings because she does not want to proceed further against the applicants. In such a situation, the prosecution of the applicants will not serve any fruitful purpose because O.P. No. 2 and other witnesses will not support the prosecution story, ultimate result will be acquittal of the applicants but during the pendency of the proceedings of the present case, applicant No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 shall not be able to settle their lives independently and they shall not be able to lead their lives peacefully, the proceedings of this case have been arisen on account of matrimonial dispute, same has been settled, in such a situatk in view of the decision of the case in B.S. Josh'' and another v. State of Hariyam'' and another, 2003 (46) ACC 779 (SC) = 2003 (51) ALR 222 = 2003 (5) AIC 42 (SC) the proceedings of the case tiny be Quashed.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by the learned Counsel (or O.P. No. 2 in the present case both the parties have entered into a compromise applicant No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 have decided to live separately and applicant No. 2 has received the amount of money which has been settled as one of the terms to of the compromise given today also in the shape of a draft of Rs. 2 lacs dated 30.8.2008 bearing No. 041362, which has been accepted by O.P. No. 2 O.P. No. 2 is having no objection in quashing the proceedings of this case, which are pending against the applicants.

Considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2 and from the perusal of record, it appears that in the present case applicant No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 who are husband and wife respectively have entered into a compromise, they have decided to live separately under the terms of compromise, the divorce petition has been allowed and O.P. No. 2 accepted the amount of money, which has been settled between the parties, O.P. No. 2 is present in the Court, she has accepted the draft of Rs. 2 lacs dated 30.8.2008 bearing No. 041362, she has orally stated before the Court that she does not want to proceed further against the applicant and she has stated that the proceedings pending against the applicant may be quashed.

The applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are young persons, they have to lead their life independently but the pendency of the proceedings shall not serve any purpose because O.P. No. 2 and other witnesses shall not support the prosecution story. The prosecution of the applicants shall be a futile exercise. In the case of B.S. Joshi and another v. State of Hariyana and another 2003 (46) ACC 779 (SC) = 2003 (51) ALR 222 = 2003 (5) AIC 42 (SC) the Apex Court has considered the similar which reads as under :

The High Court has also relied upon the decision in case of Surendra Nath Mohanty case for the proposition that offence declared to be noncompoundable cannot be compounded at all even with the permission of the Court. That is of course so. The offences which can be compounded are mentioned in section 320. Those offences which are not mentioned therein cannot be permitted to be compounded In Mohanty case the appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for offence under section 307. The High Court altered the conviction of the appellants and convicted them for offence under section 326 and imposed sentence of six months. The Trial Court had sentenced the appellants for a period of five years'' R.I. The application for compounding was, however, dismissed by the High Court. This Court holding that the offence for which the appellants had been convicted was noncompoundable and, therefore, it could not be permitted to be compounded but considering that the parties had settled their dispute outside the Court, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. It is however, to be borne in mind that in the present case the appellants had not sought compounding of the offences. They had approached the Court seeking quashing of FIR under the circumstances above stated.

In State of Karnataka v. I. Muniswamy considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provisions which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations, It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting they parties to compound noncompoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the "negative" It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on fact declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.

In Madhavao Jiwajirao Seindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre 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, changes of an ultimate conviction are 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.

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

The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different contest, in C.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the Courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for no encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "Young" days in chasing their "case" it different Courts

The view taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case is applicable in this case also. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2226 of 2001 under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, P.S. New Mandi District Muzaffarnagar pending in the Court of learned C.J.M. Muzaffarnagar are hereby quashed.

Accordingly this application is allowed.