HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No. 6361/2010
Sanjay Sharma and others
-Vs-
State of M.P. and another
PRESENT : Hon. M.A.Siddiqui,J.
Shri Sanjay Patel , Adv. for petitioners.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, PL for respondent
no.1/State.
Shri Siddharth Datt, Adv. for respondent no.2.
ORDER RESERVED ON 28/03/2011.
ORDER PASSED ON 30/03/2011.
ORDER
(1) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary
powers of this Court to quash the proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 1234/06 pending in the Court of
JMFC, Bhopal against the petitioners for the offence
under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. This petition has been filed after
framing of the charges.
(2) Undisputedly, this is the second petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. First M.Cr.C. No.
11035/2006 was dismissed by this Court on
26.03.08.
-2-
(3) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that
petitioners are the members of joint hindu family.
Petitioner no.1 was married to respondent no.2 Smt.
Tanu Sharma on 20.04.03. It is alleged that from
the very beginning she started fighting with her
mother-in-law Smt. Shakuntala Sharma (now dead)
for residing separately, for which she was
accommodated and family was shifted to E/1, Arera
Colony, Bhopal, still respondent no.2 was not
satisfied and she started raising disputes and
thereafter left the matrimonial house and started
living at Chhatarpur, she pressurized petitioner
no.1/husband to live at Chhatarpur. Petitioner
no.2 is the elder brother of petitioner no.1 (Jeth of
respondent no.2), and petitioner no.3 is the wife of
petitioner no.2 (Jethani of respondent no.2) and
petitioner no.4 is sister-in-law (Nand of respondent
no.2), all were living separately. Respondent no.2
lodged the report and case under Sections 498-A
IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was
registered against the petitioners which is pending
consideration in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal. In the
meanwhile, respondent no.2 entered into a
-3-
compromise and the matrimonial matter was
settled.
(4) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in the
matrimonial case, respondent no.2 was examined
on 15.01.09 in which she asserted that there was
no chance of any joint living so she has filed joint
application for divorce in which she has also
narrated that no dispute remains there and all
disputes have been settled out of Court, and in
future nobody will take any action against each
other. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that
from the statement of respondent no.2 it should be
drawn that this matter of 498-A IPC and sections
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has also been settled
as such the proceedings may be quashed.
(5) Learned counsel for respondent no.2 objects, he has
submitted that the matter of matrimonial dispute
was settled and for future it was agreed that no
action will be taken, but the FIR was lodged in this
case in March, 2004, and had there been some
compromise in this matter, then it would have been
agreed separately, the compromise was for
matrimonial case only. Counsel for respondent no.2
submits that earlier petition under Section 482
-4-
Cr.P.C. has been dismissed so new petition is
barred because learned counsel for the applicants
did not take any care to revive that petition.
(6) Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance
on a decision of Apex Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs.
Amit Kumar Agrawal and others 2005 SCC (Cri.)
719 in which it has been held that if there is some
compromise in writing and subsequently if any
party disputes the compromise, then it cannot be
permitted and in such a case the proceedings
should be quashed and the same have been
quashed by Hon’ble Apex Court.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that
the above case law does not apply to the facts of the
instant case. Here, no compromise took place for the
criminal case referred above.
I do agree with the submission raised by learned
counsel for respondent no.2 that no compromise took
place between the parties regarding the present case.
(7) Learned counsel has further placed reliance on a
decision of Single Bench of this Court in Sanjay
Anand vs. State of M.P. 2006 (1) MPWN Note No.
98 in which it has been held that a criminal case
under S.498-A IPC and Ss.3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
-5-
Act, 1961, though not compoundable, but this
Court can quash FIR, complaint and proceedings in
interest of justice.
There is no dispute with the aforesaid case law, but
in the case in hand, no compromise took place between
the parties.
(8) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that
according to case law of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State
of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675, the
proceedings may be quashed.
(9) It cannot be disputed that by invoking the extra
ordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
proceedings in non-compoundable case under Section
498-A IPC can be quashed, but for that there should be
some specific compromise between the parties. Here in
the case in hand, learned counsel for petitioners want
that from the compromise entered in the matrimonial
case, it should be drawn that this matter has also been
compromised, but that is not true. For every case, there
should be specific compromise. Since respondent no.2 is
categorically objecting for any compromise in this case,
so the proceedings in aforesaid Criminal Case No.
1234/06 cannot be quashed.
-6-
(10) So, looking to the above circumstances of the case, I
find no ground to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under S.482 Cr.P.C. Petition being devoid of
merits is hereby dismissed.
(M.A.SIDDIQUI)
JUDGE
30/03/2011.
Jk.