Rakesh Sharma vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Subhash Kakade, J.—Heard on I.A. No.16349/2014, an application for taking additional documents on record.

The same is allowed because in compliance of earlier order dated 23.07.2014 a copy of judgment dated 04.08.2014 is filed herewith which is passed in the divorce petition Civil Suit No.13 A/2014 Rakesh Sharma vs. Smt. Varsha Sharma (Vishwakarma) pending before learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur.

Heard finally.

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashment of the proceeding pending before J.M.F.C. Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 8302/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of IPC and r/w Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Applicant no.1 is the husband of the complainant, their marriage was performed on 22.05.2011. Thereafter on 29.05.2011 complainant left the house of her husband and went to her parents house for performing some customary rites. She returned to her matrimonial home meanwhile applicant No.1 and his family members came to know the facts that the complainant was a married/divorcee woman at the time of performing marriage with the applicant No.1, her earlier marriage was performed with one Neeraj Pawar, and a divorce decree has been passed between them on 15.04.2011, and before expiry of the appeal period of that decree, the complainant and her family members by suppressing this fact had performed the marriage with the applicant No.1. The complainant again left the matrimonial house, and on 27.07.2011 lodged a report to the Police Station Garha Jabalpur against the present applicants by making general allegation of demand of dowry and assault. After due investigation the police had submitted charge-sheet before JMFC Jabalpur where Criminal Case No.8302/2011 pending for trial.

Today the applicants Rakesh Sharma, N.K. Sharma, Ku. Rajni and Rakesh Sharma and complainant Smt. Varsha Sharma is present in person and all are identified by their counsel Shri M. Shafiqullah and Shri Chandrapal Singh respectively.

In compliance of earlier order dated 10.07.2014 of this Court willingness and consent of the parties have been recorded before Registrar (J-I) on dated 16.07.2014, where both parties i.e. applicants and complainants mentioned above submit that they are ready and willing to resolve their disputes voluntarily and by free consent. They have expressed in clear unequivocal terms that they understand the Marital Settlement Agreement Annexure A-2 and are executing their part mentioned in the settlement.

In the light of the aforesaid factual position it is apparent that the applicants and the complainant have entered into compromise voluntarily and without any fear, undue influence or pressure.

The question which now remains to be answered is whether since some of the offences alleged in the criminal proceeding are not compoundable, the criminal proceeding could be quashed.

It is apparent from perusal of record, as well as judgment dated 04.08.2014 and other related documents 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, considered the relevant provisions of the Code and concluded as under :-

�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�.

Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of Apex Court in Ram Lal and Another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, , Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and recently ruled by the Apex court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another, .

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 in light of compromise between the parties for offences related to matrimonial disputes chances of recording of conviction against the petitioners 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 giving in affirmative and resultantly the criminal proceeding pending before trial Court in Criminal Case No.8302/2011 under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of IPC r/w Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential proceedings arising from it are hereby quashed. The petitioners are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of IPC r/w Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court with the record for information and compliance.