Ritesh Ranjan vs Smita Verma Ranjan and Others

U.N. Singh, C.J.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of criminal petition. Parties have filed a joint supplementary affidavit vide this Court''s order dated 12.06.2015, containing the terms of settlement of disputes. The affidavit dated 25.06.2015 on reproduction would read as:

"1. That there were cross cases being Div. No. 109/10 and M. No. 382 of 2009 for divorce being filed by the Petitioner, Shri Ritesh Ranjan and Maintenance Case filed by the Respondent No. 1, Smti. Smita Verma Ranjan lying in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari, Bihar, were amicably settled and withdrawn by each other on 10.07.2014 and since then we, as the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 have been living together peacefully, as husband and wife.

That while living in the Quarter No. 17, Types - III, Atomic Energy Department Complex, Nongmynsong, Shillong, District East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, due to some domestic matters there was a quarrel between the parties on 30.05.2012, due to which Smti. Smita Verma Ranjan, Respondent No. 1 lodged an F.I.R. with the Rynjah Police Station, Shillong, bearing No. 39 dated 31.05.2012 under Section 498A /323 /506 IPC read with Section 9(b) /37(2)(C) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the criminal proceedings have been running in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong, under G.R. Case No. 645(A) of 2012 and now we as the parties have realized our fault and also the Petitioner is willing to take care of his wife Smti. Smita Verma Ranjan and have put all their disputes amicably to an end and have been living together peacefully for all the times to come.

That it is assured that we Shri. Ritesh Ranjan and Smti. Smita Verma Ranja, being husband and wife will co-operate each other in all respects in our lives.

That, we the parties hereto want to put an end of all our allegations against each other and the Respondent No. 1 Smti. Smita Verma Ranjan, wife of the Petitioner does not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings being G.R. Case No. 645(A) of 2012, under Section 498A /323 /506 IPC read with Section 9(b) /37(2)(C) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, out of F.I.R. No. 39 dated 31.05.2012 of Rynjah Police Station, Shillong, which is running in the Court of First Class Judicial Magistrate, Shillong.

That, we both the parties have come to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong, to give our statements that we do not want to continue all the criminal cases and at present we have been living together peacefully.

That we the parties have already settled all the complaints, disputes between us as per the terms of the Memorandum of Compromise dated 17.11.2014, and the statements made in paragraph 1 to 5 of this instant Supplementary Affidavit are true to the best of our knowledge, belief and information and the rest are our humble submissions before this Hon''ble Court, and prays the Hon''ble Court to quash all the criminal proceedings as stated above.

And, we sign this Supplementary Affidavit on this the 25th day of June, 2015 at Shillong".

Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to a judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court (three Judge Bench) in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, . The relevant paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment are reproduced as under:

"(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 to 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 F.I.R. 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.C.R.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".

Learned counsel also referred to anther judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court passed in Harpreet Singh Popli & Ors. Vs. Manmeet Kaur Popli & Anr. (Transfer Petition (Crl) No. 27 of 2009) and in Manmeet Kaur Vs. Harpreet Singh (Transfer Petition (C) No. 342 of 2009) to argue that, in the case of criminal complaint also under the Domestic Violence Act, the Court can exercise the inherent powers. Para 7 of the judgment reads as under:

"7. The proceedings initiated by the wife, i.e. cases arising out of (i) F.I.R. No. 443/2008 (Crime No. 563/2008) dated 30th October, 2008 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, U.P., (ii) Application No. 514/2008 titled Manmeet Kaur v. Harpreet Singh under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending in the Family Court, Meerut, U.P., (iii) Application No. 997/2008 title Manmeet Kaur v. Harpreet Singh, under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (4), Meerut, IP, (iv) Complaints filed with the Delhi Commission for Women dated 13.01.2009 and 02.02:2009 (v) Complaint dated 30.01.2009 filed with the Chief Minister, Delhi and Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and (vi) Complaint dated 28.01.2009 made to the Senior Police officials against the husband and his family members are quashed."

A similar view was also taken in deciding the Transfer Petition (Crl) No. 637 of 2009 (S.R. Rajgopalan Prabhu & Ors. Vs. Veena & Anr.).

Learned counsel for the parties state that in view of the joint affidavit filed by the parties, this Court may consider to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to finally set the disputes at rest. The parties who are husband and wife have amicably settled the disputes and withdrawn the case pending against each other. They have also made joint statements to that effect before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong. Though the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised very sparingly but it can certainly be exercised to render real and substantial justice to the parties. It is exercised to prevent grave miscarriage of justice and when the Court is also convinced that the trial of the case may end in futility. It can also be exercised when the Court has reason to believe that the process of litigation may only cause harassment to a citizen. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the continuance of criminal proceedings in F.I.R. No. 39 of 2012 dated 31.05.2012 of Rynjah Police Station Shillong and GR Case No. 645(A) of 2012 under Section 498-A /323 and 506 IPC read with Section 9(b) /37(2)(C) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, will amount to abuse of the process of Court and may lead to miscarriage of justice. Hence, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I quash the aforesaid proceedings and allow this Criminal petition.