Saleem vs State of Rajasthan

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.—Should this Court invoke inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case of matrimonial offences not compoundable under law, is the crucial question which arises for determination in this petition.

This question has emerged in the following circumstances:

(i) Smt. Ulfat Bano was married to petitioner Saleem but their marriage did not p~ove successful. Sarafat Ali, father of Smt. Ulfat Bano instituted FIR against the petitioner Saleem and his parents Vasir Ahmed and Smt. Razia. Police Station Kotwali, Sikar submitted charge-sheet against them under Sections 498A, 406 and 323, IPC in the Court of Civil Judge (J D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar.

(ii) During the pendency of Criminal Case No. 57/1996, a compromise was sentered into between the informant Sarafat Ali, his daughter Smt. Ulfat Bano and the petitioners Saleem, Vasir Ahmed and Smt. Razia. There- fore a joint application was filed on 2.1.1997 before the Trial Court seeking permission to compound offences under Sections 498A and 406, IPC.

(iii) The Trial Court vide order dated 4.1.1997, rejected the application.

(iv) The petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 57/1996 pending before the Trial Court.

Inherent powers can be invoked to meet three situations contemplated u/s 482. Firstly, where the jurisdiction is invoked to give effect to an order of Court, secondly, if there is an abuse of the process of the Court and thirdly, in order to secure the ends of justice. A Full Bench of this Court in Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1992 (1) Cri. LR19, has observed that permission to compound offences, which are not compoundable u/s 320, Cr.P.C. cannot be granted in exercise of inherent powers.

But in Santokh Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1995 RCC 618:11 (1995) DMC 292, this Court observed thus :

"This Court has taken a consistent view that even though the offences may not be compoundable, hut this Court under its inherent powers can quash the proceedings if the ends of justice so demanded."

In Om Parkash Modi v. The State of Rajasthan 1994 (1) RLR 389, this Court propounded as under:

"I am always of the view that matrimonial offences are basically family problems, than being offences against the society. Adjustment and tolerance are safer ways for a happy married life. Incidents do take place between a wife and husband and the best way to resolve their dispute is to discuss and find out the mutual solution, instead of seeking of third party, sometimes hasty steps are taken in a state of excitement either by the husband or wife when a family dispute exists, but on a subsequent cool thinking the mistake is realised. In such case, the Courts are expected to administer justice inpractical manner."

It appears from the perusal of certified copy of the compromise petition that Smt. Ulfat Bano has received back all the dowry, gifts etc. from her husband Saleem and in-laws and nothing is due at present .Saleem has divorced Smt .UIfat Bano and it is not possible for them to reside together. In order to lead peaceful and happy life they have decided to live separately, they both are young and are looking forward to lead a new life after re-marrying themselves with other persons. Joint application filed by the parties, bears signatures of Smt. Ulfat Bano and Saleem as well as of Sarafat Ali, Vasir Ahmed and Smt. Razia. In such a situation when . old marriage ties between Smt. Ulfat Bano and Saleem have been broken, it will be in the interest of justice to provide opportunity to the parties to forget their disastrous past and to lead a new happy life. If the parties are allowed to stick to the statements recorded before the police and repeat the same before the Trial Court, it may start a new trial of hatred against each other opening the floodgate for further litigation. To avoid that situation, the ends of justice require that the criminal proceedings should be quashed in the present case.

In the result, I allow this petition and quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 57/1996 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar.