Rajkumar Sinha And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh

@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

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

The petitioners herein, who are husband and relatives of husband of respondent No.2, have filed this petition for quashment of proceedings pending

against them in Criminal Case No.297/2019 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajkumar Sinha and others) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim

for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sukhdeo Prasad Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the

complainant / respondent No.2, would submit that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and petitioner No.1 - husband and respondent No.2 -

wife are leading their life happily, therefore, prosecution of the petitioners under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC be quashed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submission 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 Punjab (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: -

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 decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments and considering the

statements of the parties and also considering that there is no dispute outstanding between the parties and parties have settled the dispute amicably

and now, there is no dispute persisting at present between the parties, in the considered opinion of this Court, quashing the proceedings for offence

under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC 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 would be fruitless and would be abuse of the process of the court as they are now living

together.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.297/2019 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajkumar Sinha and others)

pending against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim for offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34

of the IPC, are hereby quashed and the petitioners are acquitted of the said charges.