In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 11.09.2007
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.PALANIVELU
Crl. O.P. No.27507 of 2007
and
M.P. No.1 of 2007
1. K.Prakash
2. A.R.Krishnan
3. Vasantha ..Petitioners
Vs
1. STATE
by The Inspector of Police
AWPS
Neelankarai
Chennai.
2. M.Kavitha ..Respondents
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.PC praying to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.
1064 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Alandur.
For petitioners : Mr. P. Rajesh
For respondents : Mr.A.Saravanan GA (Crl.side) for R1
Mr. R.Venkatesh for R2
O R D E R
The first petitioner and the second respondent are
husband and wife whose marriage was held on 27.10.1995 and
they lived together in the first petitioner’s house and due
to difference of opinion arose between themselves, they had
parted in March, 2002. Thereafter, the second respondent
lodged a complaint against the petitioners before the first
respondent in Crime No.30 of 2004 for the offence punishable
under Sections 498 (A), 506 (i) r/w 406 IPC and Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act. The said complaint was
registered in C.C.No.1064 of 2005 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Alandur against all the petitioners for
the offence stated supra. The said case is posted to
03.10.2007. Before ever the first petitioner filed a
petition for divorce in F.C.O.P.No.2245 of 2004 on the file
of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai. Pending
F.C.O.P., both the parties desired to settle the matter
between themselves. The terms of settlement between the
parties are as follows:
i) That the parties mutually agree to
live separately by dissolving the marriage
held on 27.10.1995 by filing a petition
for divorce by mutual consent under
Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and
necessary miscellaneous petitions to
expedite the matter and/ or any other
petition to settle the matter amicably and
quickly.
ii) The I petitioner agrees to withdraw
the divorce OP filed by him in OP No.2245
of 2004 and pending before the II
Additional Family Court, Chennai.
iii) Both the minor children will remain
in the care and custody of the second
respondent. The first petitioner gives up
his visiting rights towards the children.
The first petitioner agrees to pay a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the maintenance
of the minor children as full and final
settlement. The parties agree not to make
any further claim against each other in
future. All their articles are mutually
exchanged.
iv. The petitioners agree to file a quash
petition in the Hon’ble High Court of
Madras to quash the criminal case in CC
No.1064/2005 now pending before the a
Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur. The
II respondent agrees to say no objection
for quashing CC No.1064/2005 in the
Hon’ble Court of Madras as the offences
are non-compoundable. The II
respondent/de facto complainant agrees to
withdraw any other complaint lodged by her
against the petitioners with any competent
authority or Court of law.
v. The parties have mutually agreed that
the filing of mutual consent divorce
petition and the steps to between taken
for quashing the criminal case in CC
No.1064/2005 have to be done
simultaneously and to cooperate with each
other to settle the issue amicably and
quickly without affecting both the parties
herein in any manner in any future date.
The parties mutually agree to move the
High Court to quash the Criminal Complaint
as the offenes are non-compoundable.”
5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal
Side).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that when any criminal cases pending between the spouses and
in case they settle the matter during the pendency of the
cases, the settled law paves way to allow the parties to
compound non-compoundable offence and in exercise of
inherent power, the High Court may quash the proceedings, to
meet the ends of justice. The proposition of law is
illuminatingly highlighted in the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana
and Another, 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 848, in the
following lines :
“In the present case, the wife
filed an affidavit that the FIR was
registered at her instance due to
temperamental differences and implied
imputations. There may be many reasons
for not supporting the imputations. In
such eventuality, there would almost be
no chance of conviction. So, it would
not be proper to decline to exercise
power of quashing on the ground that it
would be permitting the parties to
compound non-compoundable offences. It
would, however, be a different matter if
the High Court on facts declines the
prayer for quashing for any valid
reasons including lack of bona fides.
Further, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia
v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre,
(1988) 1 SCC 692, it was held that while
exercising inherent power of quashing
under Section 482, it is for the High
Court to take into consideration any
special features which appear in a
particular case to consider whether it
is expedient and in the interest of
justice to permit a prosecution to
continue. The special features in such
matrimonial matters are evident. It
becomes the duty of the court to
encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputes.”
7. In the said judgment, Their Lordships have held
that if for the purpose of securing ends of justice,
quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would
not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing and merely
because the said provision enumerates non-compoundable
offences, the Court cannot decline to exercise the power of
quashing and that such non-exercise of inherent power would
prevent women from settling earlier.
8. Guided by the principles formulated in the
above said ruling and considering the special features,
which are evident, it is to be held in this case, being a
matrimonial one, that the Court is duty bound to encourage
genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. If a sacred
ceremony of a marriage is affected by some skirmishes, which
arise between the spouses, and re-union is not possible, and
their relationship is irretrievably strained, in case the
Court finds that the compromise entered into between them is
a genuine one, there is no stumbling block for the Court to
entertain the same and in order to avoid future heart-burns
between them and take the own course of life without
reference to the other after they got separated, it is just
and necessary to recognise the settlement entered into
between them. Declining to entertain such a request from
both the spouses, taking the hyper-technical view and
considering the proviso under Section 320 Cr.P.C., would be
counter productive.
9. Under the circumstances and following the dicta
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in order to meet the
ends of justice, the memo of compromise, arrived at between
the first petitioner and the second respondent, is recorded
and accepted and the proceedings in C.C.No. 1064 of 2005 on
the file of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur are hereby
quashed.
10. Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P.No. 1 of 2007 is closed.
kvsg
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate
Alandur
Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police
AWPS
Neelankarai
Chennai.
3. The II Additional Family Court
Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court
Madras 104.