JUDGMENT
P.K. Bhasin, J.
Page 2599
1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR No. 382/2001 under Sections 489A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Gokul Puri on 19-10-2001.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized according to Hindu rituals and customs on 02.05.1997. Due to some misunderstanding and temperamental differences disputes arose between them so respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint with the police and a case under Sections 498A/406 IPC was registered vide FIR No. 382/01 at Gokulpuri police station. It was alleged therein that the parents of respondent No. 2 spent a huge amount and gave dowry articles in her wedding but her in laws were not happy with the dowry articles given and started taunting her for bringing less dowry and also demanded a scooter as well as Rs. 40,000/- in cash. On many occasions she was severely beaten up by her husband (the petitioner No. 1 herein) and his parents.
Page 2600
3. Since no conciliation was possible in the Crime Against Women Cell (CAW) the police did the investigation after registering FIR and filed a charge-sheet in the concerned Court against petitioner No. 1 being the husband of the complainant (respondent No. 2) and petitioners No. 2 and 3 being the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. That case was at the stage of prosecution evidence when the complainant and the petitioners herein amicably arrived at a settlement concerning the maintenance and custody of children born out of the wedlock between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2.
4. Since the offences for which the petitioners were being prosecuted were not compoundable as per the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR and the resultant criminal proceedings in Court. Notice of the petition was sent to respondent No. 2-complainant. She appeared in person along with a counsel on 14-9-2007 before this Court and she also affirmed that matter has been amicably resolved and so she was no more interested in pursuing her case against any of the petitioners nor had she any claim of any kind against anyone of the petitioners. She supported the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings resulting there from stating that she and her husband(petitioner No. 1 herein) have decided to part company after having got their marriage dissolved by way of a petition for divorce by mutual consent. She also affirmed the terms of settlement noticed by the Additional District Judge while entertaining the joint petition for divorce and recording statements of the husband-wife at the stage of first motion. Copy of that order has been annexed with this petition.
5. In support of the prayer made in the petition for quashing of the FIR learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. . That was also a case under Sections 498A/323/406 IPC and during the pendency of criminal proceedings the disputes between the parties were settled. Petition was filed in the High Court for quashing of the FIR but that petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC being non-compoundable the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked to bypass the mandatory provision of Section 320 Cr.P.C. While reversing the decision of the High Court the Hon?ble Supreme Court observed that “if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing.” It was also observed that in case of matrimonial disputes it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. In paras No. 13 and 14 of the judgment it was observed as under:
Page 2601
13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Ors. 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 erupt 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 reason 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 hypertechnical 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.? After observing so the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR in view of the fact that the matrimonial dispute between the parties had been amicably resolved.
6. The complainant in the present case, as noticed already, has herself admitted before this Court that because of the settlement of the disputes with the petitioners she is no more interested in the prosecution of the petitioners pursuant to the FIR got registered by her and that she and her husband have decided to live separately after having got their marriage dissolved by a petition for divorce with mutual consent. Thus, in view of the afore-quoted views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi’s case (supra) the FIR registered at the instance of respondent No. 2-complainant against the petitioners as well as the criminal trial arising out of the said FIR deserve to be quashed since the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.
7. This petition is accordingly allowed and consequently FIR No. 382/2001 registered at Gokul Puri police station and the criminal proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed.
