Saumitra Kumar Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, J

Heard Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State / respondent No.1 and Mr. R.K. Verma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2.

The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants for quashment of the impugned FIR dated 25.02.2023 relating to Crime No. 17/2023 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for offences under Section 498-A/34 of IPC against the applicants.

Facts of the case, as projected by the applicants, are that the marriage of applicant No. 1 was solemnized with the respondent No. 2/ complainant on 12.05.2022 as per Hindu religion at Tilda District Raipur without any dowry. The applicants No. 2 and 3 are father and mother of the applicant No.1 respectively. The matrimonial relations between the applicant No. 1 and the complainant were normal till 15.08.2022 when the father of the complainant took her to his house saying that since her aunt is ill, she is being taken to her parental house. However, since 15.08.2022 the complainant is living with her parents. The applicant No.1 had made several efforts to bring the complainant to live with him but the complainant and her family members did not accept the requests made by the applicant No.1. Therefore, the applicant No.1 filed an application u/S 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dated 31.10.2022 before, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur for restitution of his conjugal rights and prayed for a Decree directing the complainant to live with the applicant No. 1, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 960/22.

In the above stated Civil Suit No. 960/22 efforts through the Counseling were made between the parties therein to reach upon an amicable solution to resolve the disputes and in this regard parties remained present on 18.01.2023 before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur. On 18.01.2023 the complainant refused to come back to live with the applicant No. 1 during counseling and demanded huge amount of Rs. 25 Lakh was demanded for decree of mutual divorce. Therefore, the applicant No.1 withdrew his application u/S 9 HMA and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 960/22.

Thereafter, the applicant No. 1 has filed an application for decree of divorce before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur u/S 13 HMA on 24.01.2023. After the application for decree of divorce was filed by the applicant before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur as a counterblast the complainant has lodged the impugned FIR on false allegations against the applicants on 25.02.2023. Hence, this petition.

On 12.06.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that that the matter has been settled between the parties and he has filed copy of the compromise agreement, on which, this Court had directed the parties to appear before the Court concerned, who shall verify the compromise if any entered between the parties and submit the report accordingly.

In compliance of the Court’s order dated 12.06.2024, 4th Civil Judge Senior Category / J.M.F.C., District - Bilaspur submitted a report vide Compliance Report dated 06.07.2024, whereby it has been stated  that  the  accused/applicants  and  complainant appeared before the Court and stated that there was no remaining dispute between them and voluntarily, without any fear or pressure, they submitted the settlement agreement and both the parties have confirmed the agreement reached between them and the same was verified by the concerned Court.

We have perused the aforesaid Compliance Report dated 06.07.2024 and agreement executed between the parties.

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has laid down the following principles :

“61. 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.

In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the Bench(es) concerned.”

The Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 4 SCC 675 has held as under :

“14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another(2013) 4 SCC 58  has examined scope of compromise under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. in offence of non-compoundable nature.

The Supreme Court referred to various cases and has laid down that in cases of matrimonial matters, court should exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sparingly and only it may exercise 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.

Considering the fact that the applicants and respondent No.2 have settled their disputes amicably outside of the Court and

respondent No.2 does not want to continue with criminal case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the impugned FIR dated 25.02.2023 relating to Crime No. 17/2023 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for offences under Section 498-A/34 of IPC against the applicants.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR dated 25.02.2023 relating to Crime No. 17/2023 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for offences under Section 498-A/34 of IPC against the applicants is hereby set aside.