Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10199/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10199 of 2010
=========================================================
PRAVINKUMAR
RAMPRATAP SHARMA & 5 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRPRATIKYJASANI
for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 6.
Mr.L.R.Pujari, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
MRRUSHABHRSHAH for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 03/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate, Mr.Jasani for the petitioners, learned APP,
Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate,
Mr.Rushab Shah for the respondent No.2.
Rule.
Learned APP, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent No.1 and learned
advocate, Mr.Rushab Shah for the respondent No.2 waive service of
notice of rule.
By
the order passed by this Court, this matter was referred to
Mediation Centre and a report along with consent terms of settlement
in writing is received from Mediator which is placed on record of
this matter. As per the report of the Mediator, matter is settled
between the parties and a specific terms of settlement is arrived at
between the parties.
The
learned advocates for the respective parties have jointly submitted
that as the matter is settled between the parties, the complaint may
be quashed.
It
is clear that the parties have settled the matter by arriving at a
compromise and a consent terms settlement is also placed on record.
Reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR
2005 SUPREME COURT 757 in the case of Mohd. Shamim v.
Nahid Begum wherein it has been held by the Apex Court in
paragraph Nos.12, 13, 14 and 15 as under:
“12.
In view of the fact that the settlement was arrived at the
intervention of a judicial officer of the rank of the Additional
Sessions Judge, we are of the opinion, the contention of the First
Respondent herein to the effect that she was not aware of the
contents thereof and the said agreement as also the affidavit which
were got signed by her by misrepresentation of facts must be
rejected. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we have no
doubt in our mind that the denial of execution of the said deed of
settlement is an afterthought on the part of the Respondent No.1
herein.
13.
Ex facie the settlement between the parties appears to be genuine. If
the contention of the First Respondent herein is to be accepted, she
would not have accepted the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- and in any event,
she could have filed an appropriate application in that behalf before
the Court of S.N. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. What was
least expected of her was that she would return the said sum of
Rupees 2,25,000/- to the Appellants herein.
14.
Section 406 is a compoundable offence with the permission of the
court. It is true that Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable.
15.
This Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others (2004
(8) Supreme 525), in almost a similar situation has quashed a
criminal proceeding against the husband, stating:
“…
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received
the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of
the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the
appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this
appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.
8.
In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the
appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the
criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to
continue..”
In
view of the conduct of the First Respondent in entering into the
aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the criminal
proceeding pending against the Appellants, in our opinion, in this
case also, would be an abuse of the process of the court. The
Appellant No.1, however, would be entitled to withdraw the sum of
Rs. 50,000/- which has been deposited in the court. We, therefore,
in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India direct that the impugned judgment be set
aside. The First Information Report lodged against the Appellants is
quashed. The Appeal is allowed. However, this order should not be
treated as a precedent.”
Reliance
is also placed on another decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR
2003 SUPREME COURT 1386 in
the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of
Haryana wherein complaint for the offence under Sec.498-A
has been quashed by using the inherent power of the Court under
Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. It has been held by the Apex Court in paras 14
and 15 of the said judgment 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.
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.”
Applying
the above ratio to the facts of the present case, since the matter
has been settled between the parties, I am of the opinion that no
useful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal
proceedings pending against the petitioners to continue as it would
be abuse of process of the court. Hence, the complaint in question
is required to be quashed.
In
view of the above, FIR registered as C.R.No.I-191 of 2010 at Isanpur
Police Station, Ahmedabad, is quashed. As per the settlement terms,
both the parties are directed to go before the Family Court for
obtaining decree of divorce under Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and
can seek early hearing. This Cri.Misc.Application is accordingly
allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(M.D.SHAH,J.)
radhan
Top