Jabiulla Ansari @ Janmaara @ Bikuwa and Nurjaha Khatun vs State of Sikkim

S.P. Wangdi, ACJ.

This application has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings in G.R.Case No. 176 of 2009 pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok.

The facts and circumstances leading to the present application are that, the petitioners are husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnized in the year 1994 and have four children out of their wedlock. As a consequence of an oral complaint made by the petitioner no.2, Singtam P.S. Case No. 27(5)09 dated 08.05.2009 u/s 323/498''A''/506 IPC was registered against the petitioner no.1, resulting in a charge sheet being filed against him leading to registration of G.R.Case No.176 of 2009 for trial in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which is presently at the stage of consideration of charge. It has been submitted that the parties have ultimately settled the matter amicably by a deed of compromise on the terms and conditions contained therein. A copy of the deed of compromise has been filed as Annexure P-2 to the application which is dated 14.03.2011.

I have perused and considered the terms and conditions, and I am satisfied that this is a matter where this Court ought to intervene as we find that the petitioners are now living happily as husband and wife with their four children in the same board and mess. It would be a travesty of justice if the criminal case is allowed to proceed. In any case carrying on with the criminal case would be futile as it is likely to fail for want of prosecution.

In the case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , it has been held that while exercising inherent power of quashing u/s 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which would appear in a particular case and to consider whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue and, that special features in matrimonial matters are evident, and therefore, it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. We may refer to paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) which are as follows:

In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy considering the scope of inherent power of quashing u/s 482, 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 then 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 provision 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 the parties to compound non-compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the "negative". It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.

In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing u/s 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 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.

In the present case, the petitioners are a young couple who are aged 38 and 30 years respectively and parents of minor children ranging between the age groups of 8 to 14 years. Since they have decided to live harmoniously, it would not be fair to allow the criminal proceedings to continue.

In view of the above, the application is allowed. Proceedings in G.R.Case No.176 of 2009 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok hereby stand quashed.

No order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, for compliance.