Rajesh Kumar and Others vs State and Another

Harbans Lal, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 28.7.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa whereby cognizance has been taken for the offence u/s 498-A IPC and also against the order dated 25.03.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) Pilani issuing warrant of arrest against the accused petitioners.

The relevant facts giving rise to this petition and necessary for its disposal are that the non-petitioner No.2 got an FIR registered at P.S. Pilani against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 223, 500 and 504 IPC in the year 1998 wherein FR was submitted after investigation. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 28.07.2000 took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence u/s 498-A IPC. The non-petitioner No.2 simultaneously filed a divorce petition against petitioner No. 1 u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the court of learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu which was decreed exparte in favour of non-petitioner No.2 on 08.09.1999 dissolving the marriage between her and her husband Rajesh. Non-petitioner No.2 filed a protest petition in the FR without disclosing the factum of divorce having taken place between the parties. She also instituted a case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance wherein also an exparte order granting maintenance was passed against petitioner No. 1 on 31.08.1999. But thereafter, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement on 15.12.2000 vide which it was agreed that on payment of Rs.45,000/- by petitioner No.l to non-petitioner No.2, the entire dispute shall stand compromised and settled and no further case shall be instituted by her. As per the aforesaid compromise, petitioner No.l paid Rs.45,000/- to non-petitioner No.2. The case u/s 125(3) Cr.P.C. was dropped on the application of non-petitioner No.2. But she has not withdrawn the instant case for the offence u/s 498-A IPC although, she has remarried and is living with her present husband peacefully. It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the compromise between the parties, the proceedings in Criminal Case No.460/03 pending in the court of learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilani may be quashed in the interest of justice as the same tantamounts to abuse of the process of the court.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned P.P. for the State as well as Learned Counsel for non-petitioner No.2.

Learned Counsel for non-petitioner No.2 has fairly conceded that the parties have arrived at a settlement and have also remarried and are living peacefully with their present spouses, but he has submitted that time may be granted to produce non-petitioner No.2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended on the strength of the case of B.S.Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003(1) ACJ 621 (S.C.) : 2003(2) CCC 161 (S.C.) : 2003(46) ACC 779), Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal & Ors., (2005(1) CCC 611 (S.C.) : 2005 All JIC 209) and Mohd.Shamim & Ors. Vs. Nahid Begum & Ann, (2005(1) CCC 837 (S.C.) : 2005( 1) SC 59) that the parties having come to compromise, continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is gross abuse of the process of the court and the same should be quashed.

I have perused the relevant documents including the com (sic) parties.

It is not disputed that the parties have arrived at a compromise all (sic) the compromise a lumpsum amount of Rs.45,000/- has been paid by petition,(sic) non-petitioner No.2. It is admitted that the parties have now come to comprom(sic) have settled their disputes out of court. A compromise-deed has also been placed record of this file.

In B.S.Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ann, (2003(1) ACJ 621 (S.C.) : 2003(2) CCC 161 (S.C.)it has been clearly held that the ends of justice are higher than mere technicalities of law. Where very basis or foundation of prosecution case is eroded by parties coming to settlement in matrimonial disputes, mere technicality that offence involved is a non-compoundable one, should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of proceedings by High Courts in exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been further held that if the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.c. would not be a bar to the exercise of powers of quashing.

In Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal & Ors., (2005(1) CCC 611 (S.C.)), the facts of which case are similar to the facts of the case in hand, it has been held that in view of the subsequent events and conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which the appeal has arisen allowed to continue and in order to do complete justice, the proceedings of criminal case were quashed.

Similar view has been taken in the case of Mohd.Shamim & Ors. Vs. Nahid Begum & Am., (2005(1) CCC 837 (S.C.)) and it has been held that wherein a criminal case u/s 406 and 498-A IPC, the parties settled their disputes and wife received a substantial amount from husband in that settlement, continuance of criminal case would be an abuse of the process of law.

Thus, in the instant case also, the continuance of the proceedings in criminal case pending before the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track), Pilani tantamounts to the abuse of the process of the court and following the law enunciated in the aforesaid cases, the same deserves to be quashed for securing the ends of justice.

Consequently, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in Criminal Case No.460/03 pending before the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track), Pilani are quashed.