Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/3909/2008 3/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3909 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
==========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
==========================================
BHARATKUMAR
PUNJALAL CHAUHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT
==========================================
Appearance :
MR
PP MAJMUDAR for Applicants
MR LB DABHI ADDL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 27/03/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notice of rule for respondent No.1 ? State of Gujarat.
2. Having
regard to the facts of the case, with the consent of the learned
advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today.
3. By
this petition, the applicants seek quashment of the First Information
Report being City Police Station, Vadodara City I C.R. No.4/08 qua
the present applicants.
4. The
applicants No.1 and 2 are the original accused No.2 and 3 and the
applicant No.3 is the original complainant.
5. It
appears that subsequent to filing of the complaint, the present
applicants have settled the dispute between them and the applicant
No.3, who is the daughter-in-law of the applicants No.1 and 2, has
started residing with the applicants No.1 and 2 and therefore, does
not desire to pursue the present complaint any further. The applicant
No.3 Jayshree Chauhan has filed an affidavit dated 25th
March, 2008, wherein it has been specifically averred that the
dispute has been amicably settled and therefore, she does not wish to
continue with the criminal complaint initiated by her against her
husband namely, Kalpeshbhai Chauhan (who is arrayed as accused No.1
in the criminal complaint), her father-in-law and her mother-in-law.
6. Mr.
P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that
in the background of the facts noted hereinabove, considering the
fact that the applicants have settled the dispute between them and
the applicant No.3 who is the daughter-in-law of the applicants No.1
and 2, has started residing with the applicants No.1 and 2 at their
residence, continuation of the present proceedings would amount to an
abuse of the process of Court. It is submitted that considering the
fact that this is a matrimonial dispute which has been amicably
settled between the parties, this Court has ample power to quash the
complaint in question in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386. It is
submitted that in the circumstances, the complaint in question is
required to be quashed in the interest of justice.
7. In
the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of
Haryana, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
?S13.
The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different
context, in G. V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others ((2000) 3 SCC 693)
are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view
in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, it was said that there has been
an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a
sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly extent which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders
of the family are also involved with the result that those who could
have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless
on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are
many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder
over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose
their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in
different Courts.
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.
15.
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.??
8. Considering
the facts of the present case in the light of the decision of the
Supreme Court cited hereinabove, it is an undisputed position that
the applicants i.e. the original complainant and original accused
No.2 and 3 have settled the dispute amicably between them, pursuant
to which the applicant No.3 has started residing with her in-laws
i.e. the applicants No.1 and 2, at their residence. In the
circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice
would best be served if the complaint in question is quashed, so that
the parties can live together peacefully. Besides, continuance of
investigation pursuant to the complaint would not allow the applicant
No.3 to reside comfortably with her in-laws and may therefore, result
in creating problems for her in future. In the circumstances keeping
in view the interest of the applicant No.3, this Court is of the
opinion that this is a fit case for exercise of powers under section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
9. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly
allowed. The First Information Report being City Police Station,
Vadodara City I C.R. No.4/08, is hereby quashed. Rule is made
absolute.
(H.N.DEVANI,
J.)
shekhar/-
Top