NARINDER SINGH SAINI vs STATE AND ORS

In the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR’s, which have been filed by the respondent No. 3, namely, Deepika Saini on false

and flimsy grounds against the petitioner and his family members. As the said FIRs are the abuse of process of law and the parties have finally

settled their dispute through a mutual Decree of Divorce passed by the Additional District Judge, Matrimonial Court, Jammu through a judgment

decree dated 14th November, 2013. The details of the FIR’s are as under:-

FIR No. 12/2011 dated 31st May, 2011 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu for the offence under Sections 498-A, 109 and 406 RPC.

At present, the case is pending disposal before the Railway Magistrate, Jammu.

FIR No. 108/2013 dated 04th May, 2013 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for the offence under Sections 294, 354, 341 and 34

RPC. At present, the case is pending disposal before the Railway Magistrate, Jammu.Â

FIR No. 73/2012 dated 10th July, 2012, registered at Police Station Gangyal, Jammu for the offence under Sections 341, 109, 500 and 506 RPC.Â

At present, the case is pending disposal before the Railway Magistrate, Jammu.Â

The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner and respondent No. 3, namely, Deepika Saini were the husband and wife and their marriage was

solemnized at Jammu on 22nd November, 2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, the parties hardly stayed together for

fifteen days and thereafter, they started residing separately, as they were unable to live together as husband and wife due to their differences in

attitude and temperaments. Out of the wedlock, no issue has been born.

It is stated in the petition that despite the sincere efforts made by the relatives of both sides, the parties could not reconcile with each other.Â

Finally, the parties mutually agreed and decided to dissolve their marriage on the memorandum of understanding. It has been settled between the

parties that the petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs in the Court to be paid to the respondent No. 3 on account of permanent

alimony. Both the parties will return their articles of marriage as per the list exchanged by the parties and the respondent shall not claim any

maintenance from the petitioner and the respondent shall also withdraw all cases criminal/civil filed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner and

his family members after passing of the decree of divorce by mutual consent.

It is also stated in the petition that a petition u/s 15 of Hindu Marriage Act (Annexure-P) was filed by both the parties before the Matrimonial Court,

Jammu, stating therein all the terms and conditions of their settlement.

The statements of both the parties were recorded before the Matrimonial Court and the case was posted to be listed after six months. Again the

statements of both the parties were recorded by the Matrimonial Court and they stick to their stand and finally their statement was recorded by the

Hon’ble Court.Â

On the basis of the aforesaid petition, i.e., petition filed u/s 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the statement of the parties, the petitioner deposited

Rs. 5.00 lacs in the Matrimonial Act and the same has been released in favour of respondent no. 3 by the Trial Court. In the petition u/s 15 of the

Hindu Marriage Act and in the statement of the petitioner and respondent, she categorically stated that everything has been settled between the

petitioner and his family members, nothing more is due to her and she would withdraw all the cases stated in the title of the petition, filed by her

against the petitioner and his members, which are pending disposal before the Railway Magistrate, Jammu.

Perusing the statements of the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the marriage between the parties has been

dissolved through a Decree of Divorce u/s 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent has been passed by the Matrimonial Court

vide order dated 14th November, 2013.

It is further stated in the petition that the whole family members including relatives/relations, total eleven in numbers, have been falsely implicated by

the respondent No. 3 for none for their fault. The sister of the petitioner and her husband has to come from Bangalore on every date of hearing and

the petitioner himself is working at Pune in corporate sector and it is very difficult for the petitioner to attend the Court on every date of hearing

despite the Decree of Divorce by mutual consent has been passed and all the disputes between the parties have been finally settled. Now the

petitioner and his relatives are facing very hardship and harassment. It is the share abuse of the process of the Court and a great injustice is being

faced by the petitioner and his relatives, who have been falsely implicated out of matrimonial dispute.Â

It is further pleaded in the petition that the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and all family members of both the parties have finally settled their disputes

as full and final settlement. In view of her statement before the Matrimonial Court that she would withdraw all the cases, civil as well as criminal,

filed against the petitioner and his relatives shall be withdrawn after passing of the Divorce Decree. But, after passing the Decree by mutual

consent, she received the amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs from the Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, she did not come forward to withdraw the cases as per

the terms and conditions of the divorce decree by mutual consent despite the repeated requests made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 3.

In this case, as stated above, the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 have finally settled their dispute through mutual consent and a Decree of

Divorce has also been passed and the respondent No.3 has received Rs.5.00 lacs from the Court deposited by the petitioner u/s 15 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, as such, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to meet the ends of justice and to proceed with the above said cases shall be the

abuse of process of law.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of the petition.

Respondent no.3 (wife of petitioner) in the case has refused to acknowledge the notice of court as reported by registry. From the perusal of

relevant documents annexed in the petition, it is evident that three criminal cases filed by respondent no.3, the detail of which has been given in the

petition are pending against the petitioner and others, before Railway Court (JMIC), Jammu. Matrimonial Court has already passed a decree of

mutual divorce u/s 15 of Hindu Marriage Act between petitioner and respondent no.3 on 14.11.2013. While proceedings before Matrimonial Court

statement of respondents no.3 was recorded on 12. 11.2013, wherein she has stated that she will withdraw criminal cases pending before criminal

courts against husband. That mutual Divorce Decree is still in existence.Â

Now only question arises as to whether these criminal proceeding are required to be quashed by exercising the power u/s 561-A Cr.P.C or not

.Â

Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reads as follows:-.

“Saving of inherent power of High Court :- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make

any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.â€​

Section 561- A of the  Code of Criminal Procedure is a reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely  courts of

law but also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends

of justice.

In case titled Ram Singh & anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 11 (2005) DMC 412, it is held as under:Â

“I have given my anxious consideration to the above arguments and have gone through the case laws cited at the Bar. It is well settled that while

exercising inherent jurisdiction the Court should encourage genuine settlements of the cases arising out of matrimonial disputes. While considering the

object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in V.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana, ,

have observed as under:

There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent 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 hypertechnical view would be counter-productive and would act against

interest 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 XX-A of the Indian Penal

Code.

The present case also arises out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Undisputedly the parties have entered into a written compromise

and are living peacefully. However, the question that still emerges for consideration of this Court is whether after conviction having been recorded, the

offence can be ordered to be compounded and/or the criminal proceedings pending in the Appellate Court can be ordered to be dropped?

In O.P. Dholikia's case (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with a case arising out of offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, considered the question as to what is the proper stage for compounding the offence. Their Lordships found force with the

argument of the Counsel for the stage that conviction and sentence having been upheld by all the three Forums, the Apex Court need not interfere

with the same as it was open for the parties to enter into a compromise at an earlier stage when the appeal was pending. However, taking into

consideration the nature of offence in question and the fact that complainant and the accused had already entered into a compromise, Their Lordships

thought it appropriate to grant permission, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case to compound and accordingly annulled the

conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act.

In Govinda's case (supra) the accused were convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. and appeal against conviction was

pending before the Appellate Court. During pendency of appeal, the parties entered into a compromise and ultimately invoked inherent jurisdiction of

this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. This Court refused to invoke inherent jurisdiction for assuming direction to compound the offence under Section

489A, I.P.C. But considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in series of decisions referred to in the judgment, this Court ordered for quashing

the proceedings in appeal holding that continuance of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law and would not be in the interest of justice.

Evidently thus, the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Govind and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (supra). Therefore,

keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as stated hereinabove, the continuance of proceedings in appeal pending before the Appellate

Court, in my considered view would not be in the interest of justice and keeping the proceedings pending would amount to abuse of the process of

Court.

In the result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 28/2003 Ram Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, filed against the

judgment and order dated 10.12.2003, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg, District Bharatpur are quashed. Necessarily the

conviction and sentence under Section 498A, I.P.C. under the judgment and order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the Trial Court stands annulled.

In case tiled Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another â€" (2013) 4 SCC 58 5), it is held as under:-

“6) The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 of the Code has been examined by this Court in a catena of earlier decisions. In the present

case, we are concerned about interference by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 in relation to matrimonial disputes.

7) It is not in dispute that matrimonial disputes have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints under Sections 498A

and 406 of IPC not only against the husband but also against the relatives of the husband. The question is when such matters are resolved either by

the wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or by mutual settlement of other pending disputes for which both the sides approached the High

Court and jointly prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the FIR or complaint by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, whether

the prayer can be declined on the sole ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, it would be impermissible

for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.

8) It is not in dispute that in the case on hand subsequent to the filing of the criminal complaint under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties concerned have

amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/settlement. Pursuant thereto, the appellants filed the said compromise before the trial

Court with a request to place the same on record and to drop the criminal proceedings against the appellants herein. It is also not in dispute that in

addition to the mutual settlement arrived at by the parties, respondent-wife has also filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue the criminal

proceedings against the appellants and fully supported the contents of the settlement deed. It is the grievance of the appellants that not only the trial

Court rejected such prayer of the parties but also the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code only on the ground

that the criminal proceedings relate to the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC which are non-compoundable in nature.

9) Learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our attention to the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another,

(2003) 4 SCC 675, submitted that in an identical circumstance, this Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section

482can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private and the parties are willing to settle their disputes

amicably. It is not in dispute that the facts in B.S. Joshi (supra) are identical and the nature of the offence and the question of law involved are almost

similar to the one in hand. After considering the law laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and explaining the

decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC

238 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, this Court held:

“8. … …. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes

necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing.

It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.†Considering

matrimonial matters, this Court also held:

“12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of

matrimonial disputes.â€​

10) As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of a complaint in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the

parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant also has sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That

was the position before the trial Court as well as before the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned

order of the High Court shows that because the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non-compoundable offence, the court

proceeded on a wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the petition filed under Section 482. A perusal of the petition before the

High Court shows that the application filed by the appellants was not for compounding of non-compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing

the criminal proceedings.

11) The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the

powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into

between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on

hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.

12) 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.

13) 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 its 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 the process of the 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.

14) In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or

complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court

under Section 482 of the Code. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.07.2012 passed in

M.CR.C. No. 2877 of 2012 and quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Indore.

15) The appeal is allowed.â€​

In present case also, petitioner and respondent no.3Â have already settled the dispute and mutual divorce decree has been passed by competent

court (Matrimonial court ) on 14.11.2013 . Respondent no. 3 has categorically stated that she would withdraw all the criminal cases. So there would

be no chance of conviction. When the court is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court

should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We

are mindful that most of the Courts in India are under heavy pressure of workload. If the court is almost certain that the trial would only be an

exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate the proceedings. In present case, it is definitely certain that due to mutual divorce

between husband and wife, there is no chance of conviction of accused persons in all three criminal cases, which have been lodged by respondent

no.3. Â

So keeping in view all facts and circumstances of case, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 12/2011 dated 31st May, 2011 registered at Police

Station, Women Cell, Jammu for the offence under Sections 498-A, 109 and 406 RPC, pending disposal before the Railway Magistrate, Jammu; FIR

No. 108/2013 dated 04th May, 2013 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for the offence under Sections 294, 354, 341 and 34 RPC

pending disposal before the Railway Magistrate, Jammu; and FIR No. 73/2012 dated 10th July, 2012, registered at Police Station Gangyal, Jammu for

the offence under Sections 341, 109, 500 and 506 RPC pending disposal before the Railway Magistrate, Jammu, are hereby quashed along with all the

proceedings initiated thereafter.Â

This petition is disposed off accordingly.