Manish Soni and Others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Subhash Kakade, J—This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashment of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 15/2014 pending before Judl. Magistrate Ist Class, Balaghat for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The applicant no. 2 Smt. Pragati Soni was married with applicant no. 1 Manish Soni on dated 18.02.2010. On complaint lodged by the applicant her husband Manish Soni is facing criminal trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balaghat for the offence punishable under the aforesaid sections.

Certain unfortunate incidents relating to matrimonial matter have dragged the parties to this Court. Now, the parties have settled all their disputes and want to compromise the matter. Copy of the Compromise Application (Annexure A/2) has also been filed along with affidavits filed by the parties before the learned trial Court.

As per order of this Court willingness and consent of the parties have been recorded before Registrar (J-I) today i.e. on dated 06.07.15. The applicant no. 2 Smt. Pragati Soni (complainant before the trial Court) and applicant no. 1 Manish Soni (accused) were present in person and identified by their counsel Shri Mohammad Rasheed. Both parties submit that they are ready and willing to resolve their disputes voluntarily and by free consent. They have expressed in clear unequivocal terms that disputes have also been resolved. In the light of the aforesaid factual position it is apparent that the applicant and the accused have entered into compromise voluntarily without any fear, undue influence or pressure.

Learned JMFC, Balaghat by the impugned order (Annexure A/1) compounded the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506-B of IPC. But as the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable, the learned trial Court has passed a settlement order with a liberty to file a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court for quashment of the proceedings.

The question which now remains to be answered is whether since offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable, the criminal proceedings could be quashed.

It is apparent from perusal of the related documents that the applicants are respectable citizens. It is pertinent to mention here that dispute between the parties is of private nature and having no adverse effect to others.

The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 9 JT 457 : (2012) 9 JT 426 : (2012) 9 SCALE 257 : (2012) 10 SCC 303 considered the relevant provisions of the Code and concluded as under:-

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus:

the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding".

Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Ram Lal and Another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1999 SC 895 : (1999) CriLJ 1342 : (1999) 1 Crimes 41 : (1999) 1 JT 147 : (1999) 1 SCALE 162 : (1999) 2 SCC 213 : (1999) 1 SCR 230 : (1999) AIRSCW 566 : (1999) 1 Supreme 216 , Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 675 : (2008) 12 JT 104 : (2008) 15 SCC 667 and recently ruled by the Apex court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another, AIR 2012 SC 499 : (2012) CriLJ 840 : (2012) 1 JCC 101 : (2011) 13 JT 180 : (2012) 167 PLR 108 : (2012) 1 RCR(Criminal) 9 : (2011) 12 SCALE 588 : (2012) AIRSCW 445 .

Since the parties had buried the hatchet by amicably settling their disputes, this Court could allow the matter to be compounded. In the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that the settlement arrived at between the parties in form of compromise application (Annexure A/2) is a sensible step that will benefit the parties, give quietus to the controversy and rehabilitate and normalize the relationship between them. In light of compromise between the parties for offences related to matrimonial disputes chances of recording of conviction against the applicant are totally bleak and the entire exercise of trial is destined to be exercise of futility. The continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case the answer of question is given in affirmative and resultantly the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 15/2014 pending before Judl. Magistrate Ist Class, Balaghat for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential proceedings arising from it are hereby quashed. Accused/applicant no. 1 Manish Soni is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in addition to Sections 294 and 506-B of IPC.

The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below for intimation and necessary compliance.