Nitu Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J

1) The instant petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of entire proceedings pertaining to Criminal Case No. RCC/7050/2021 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Atul Shukla and others), pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, arising out of FIR bearing No.72/2020, registered at Mahila Thana, Durg for offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2) The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 – Atul Kumar Shukla is husband, respondent No.3 – Umesh Shukla is father-in-law, respondent No. 4 – Swati Tripathi is sister-in-law and respondent No.5 – Prasun Shukla is brother-in-law of the petitioner herein. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 29.01.2019 according to Hundu Rites at Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. After some time, dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No.2 to 5 on account of harassment and assault in connection with demand of dowry, therefore, complaint was made by the petitioner at Mahila Thana, Durg and counseling was also conducted between the parties but it went in vain and thereafter FIR bearing No. 72/2020 was registered against the private respondents for offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police after due investigation filed charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg and Criminal Case was registered bearing No. RCC 7050 of 2021.

3) During the pendency of the Criminal Case, the petitioner and the private respondents amicably settled their dispute and an application under Section 320 (1) and 320 (2) of the Cr.P.C. was moved by both the parties before the learned trial Court on 18.10.2022, stating therein that charge-sheet has been filed and the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the complainant/petitioner herein does not want to prosecute furthermore against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

4) Learned trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2022 rejected the application on the ground that the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC is not a compoundable offence.

5) The petitioner has preferred the instant petition against the order dated 18.10.2022.

6) This Court vide order dated 10.11.2022 directed both the parties to appear before Additional Registrar (Judicial) for recording their statements and in pursuance of such order, the statement of the petitioner – Smt. Nitu Shukla and respondent No.2 – Atul Kumar Shukla was recorded on 22.11.2022 in presence of the Additional Registrar (Judicial), where they stated that dispute between them has been settled amicably and they have moved an application for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent before the learned Family Court, Durg. The petitioner has specifically stated that she does not want to prosecute the private respondents.

7) Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no existing enmity between them, the parties have settled their dispute and the petitioner does not want to continue with the Criminal Case pending against respondent Nos. 2 to 5. She would further submit that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have moved an application for mutual divorce, which is pending before the learned Family Court, Durg.

8) Mr. Nikhil Parakh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 to 5 would support the submission made by Ms. Anuja Sharma. He would submit that continuation of the criminal case before the learned trial Court would be abuse of process of law.

9) Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that though the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable but the Supreme Court in catena of the judgments has allowed such prayer.

10) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

11) The Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another (2012) 10 SCC 303 has laid down the following principles :

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, 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.

In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the Bench(es) concerned."

12) The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held as under:-

"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 counter productive 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.

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."

13) The Supreme Court referred to various cases and has laid down that in cases of matrimonial matters, court should exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sparingly and only it may exercise 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.

14) In the instant case, the petitioner appeared before this Court and her statement was recorded by the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 22.11.2022, where she has clearly stated that dispute between the parties has been settled amicably and she does not want to continue with the criminal case. Further, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have supported the contention made by the petitioner and they have also stated before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) likewise.

15) Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 have settled their dispute amicably and she does not want to continue with criminal case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No. RCC/7050/2021.

16) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and criminal proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No. RCC/7050/2021 is hereby quashed. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 are acquitted of the charges.