Karan Singh & Ors vs UT Of J&K & Anr

Mohan Lal, J

By the medium of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners seek quashment of FIR No. 73/2019 dated 22.06.2019 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A/342/323 RPC registered at Police Station Bari Brahmana (Samba) on the complaint of respondent No.2, as well as the Challan No.87/2019 pending before the Court of learned Additional Munsiff Samba arising out of the said FIR against the petitioners.

It has been stated, that marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 08.02.2019 at Kothi More Bassi Khurd Bari Brahmana Samba according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, and after the marriage the parties lived together at the matrimonial home and out of their wedlock, no child was born; that petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are father/mother-in-law and petitioner Nos.4, 5 & 6 are brothers/sister-in-law of the respondent No.2; that due to differences of temperaments, incompatibility of nature and different thinking of lifestyle, the parties could not adjust and live with each other and they are living separately since 25-05-2019 and consequent to the failure of all efforts of reconciliation between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 both the parties severed their matrimonial ties by way of divorce decree dated 20.10.2020 passed by the learned District Court (Matrimonial) Samba; that on the complaint of the respondent No.2 the aforesaid case bearing FIR No.73/2019 under section 498-A/342/323 RPC was registered against the Petitioners at Police Station Bari-Brahamana and after completion of the investigation the challan No. 87/2019 under sections 498-A, 342, 323, 147 R.P.C was presented before the competent court of law on 27.09.2019 and the same is pending trial before the court of learned Additional Munsiff Samba; that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint/application under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner No.1 and the same was pending adjudication before the court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate Samba; that during the course of the said proceedings with the intervention of elderly persons an amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and they decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent upon the terms and conditions that petitioner No.l (husband) would pay rupees one lac to the respondent no 2 (wife) as permanent alimony and there would be no claims in regard to Istridhan, dowry articles, maintenance as well as permanent alimony or on any other account between the parties; that the petitioners filed a petition under section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce and the same was disposed of by the learned Matrimonial Court of District Judge Samba granting decree of divorce dated 20.10:2020; that in pursuance to the settlement the petitioner no 1 husband paid the sum of rupees one lac to the satisfaction of all the claims and with the exchange of items, there remained no claim in regard to Istridhan, dowry articles, maintenance as well as permanent alimony or on any other account as between the parties; that pursuance to the settlement between the parties, respondent no.2 withdrew her application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act from the court of learned Additional Special Mobile Magistrate Samba vide order dated 10.10.2020; prayer has been made by the parties for quashment of FIR as well as the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned Additional Munsiff Samba arising out of the same FIR.

Petitioners have annexed with the petition an agreement of divorce settlement dated 04.03.2020 duly registered before Notary Samba stating therein that both the parties have decided to close cases against each other. Instant petition is supported by an affidavit sworn by petitioner No.1.

Pursuant to the order dated 02.03.2023, the Registrar Judicial of this court has recorded the statements of the parties on oath, the same are placed on record, which read as under:- Statement of Karan Singh (petitioner No.1); Age; 34 years; S/o Joginder Singh R/o H.No. 69, Ward No.12, Lane No.3, Bari Brahmana, Samba on oath today i.e 02.03.2023;

Stated, that I have amicably resolved all issues and disputes with Anita Devi (respondent No.2). In view of our amicable settlement and dissolution of marriage, I pray before the Hon’ble Court to quash FIR 73/2019 lodged at Police Station Bari Brahmana for commission of offences under section 498-A/342/323 RPC and consequent proceedings /challan No. 87/2019 under section 498-A/342/323/147 RPC pending before the Court of learned Additional Munsiff, Samba.

Statement of Anita Devi (respondent No.2); Age; 34 years; D/o Late Sh. Romesh Lal, R/o Kothi Morh, Bassi Khurd, Bari Brahmana, Samba on oath today i.e 02.03.2023; Stated, that I have amicably resolved all issues and disputes with petitioners and have also dissolved marriage with Karan Singh (petitioner No.1). Further, I have no grievance against the petitioners. In view of our amicable settlement and dissolution of marriage, I have no objection in case Hon’ble Court quashes FIR 73/2019 lodged at Police Station Bari Brahmana for commission of offences under section 498-A/342/323 RPC and consequent proceedings /challan No. 87/2019 under section 498-A/342/323/147 RPC pending before the Court of learned Additional Munsiff, Samba.

Bare perusal of the statements of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 placed on record demonstrate that the parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their disputes/issues, so there would be no chance of conviction in near future in case trial is held and concluded.

The Apex Court in the case of “B. S. Joshi & others Vs State of Haryana and another”, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, while discussing the ambit and scope of inherent powers of High Courts under Section 482 CPC in paras 1, 3, 11, 14, 15 and 16 held as under :

“1.The question that falls for determination in the instant case is about the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings. The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 has been examined by this Court in catena of earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes. The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not only against the husband but his other family members also. When such matters are resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the First Information Report or complaint filed by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.

3.The High Court has, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition filed by the appellants seeking quashing of the FIR for in view of the High Court the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC are non-compoundable and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to bypass the mandatory provision of Section 320 of the Code. For its view, the High Court has referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335]; Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551; and Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. v. State of Orissa [AIR 1999 SC 2181].

11.In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(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.

14.There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

15.In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

16.For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned.”

Ratio of the judgment of B. S. Joshi’s case (supra) makes the legal proposition abundantly clear, that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings even for non-compoundable offences to meet the ends of justice if the parties have settled their disputes amicably by a compromise. Ratio of the judgment (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case in hand. In view of the above, instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 73/2019 dated 22.06.2019 registered at Police Station Bari Brahmana (Samba) for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A/342/323 RPC against the petitioners alongwith all the proceedings arising out of the same FIR pending in the Court of learned Additional Munsiff (JMIC) Samba, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, stands quashed. Copy of this order be forthwith provided to the Court below/concerned police station for information and compliance.

Disposed of accordingly.