Krishna Kumar Chandrakar And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

Heard on the application for amendment in the petition impleading the complainant namely, Smt. Priya Chandrakar as party respondent No.2. It is

allowed accordingly.

Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel present through video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 / complainant and

would submit that respondent No.2 is present with him and she had already settled the matter with the petitioners amicably and divorce has already

been granted to her dissolving her marriage with the son of petitioners No.1 & 2 and therefore appropriate order be passed for closing the criminal

proceedings.

Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would also submit that the matter has been compromised between the parties

and decree of divorce has already been granted to respondent No.2 and thereafter, parties have settled their dispute and the petitioners and

respondent No.2, both have proceeded with their lives further. Therefore, registration of offence and proceeding under Section 498A read with

Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Raipur vide Criminal Case No.2146/2017 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Hemant Chandrakar and others) be quashed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost

circumspection.

The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the CrPC read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,

in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings has been examined by the Supreme Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others

v. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675Â and thereafter in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2 (2012) 10 SCC 303, and

ultimately, noticing the aforesaid decisions, finally, in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another  (2013) 4 SCC 58, Their

Lordships of the Supreme Court in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting into criminal proceedings, held as under: - Â

In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable

increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the

same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the

exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important

role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live

peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of

law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite

to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of

material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the

proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case

and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the

duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of

the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.

Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the settled legal position noticed herein-above, it is quite vivid that matrimonial dispute

between the petitioners and respondent No.2 has come to an end and decree of divorce has already been granted on 10-4-2020 by the jurisdiction

Family Court and thereafter, they have settled the dispute amicably. In that view of the matter chances of conviction of the petitioners is bleak and

thus, it would be inappropriate to allow continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners any further and quashing the proceedings against

them for offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would be in the ends of

justice, it would bring peace to them, rather allowing the continuation of prosecution for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act would be fruitless and would be abuse of the process of the court.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.2146/2017 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Hemant Chandrakar and

others) pending against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for offence punishable under Section 498-A read with

Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed and the petitioners are acquitted of the said charges.