1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1077 OF 2010
1. Raju S/o Nilaman Ade
Age : 28 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Takli Tanda, Tq.Khultabad,
Dist.Aurangabad.
2. Deubai W/o Nilaman Ade
Age : 57 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o As above.
3. Kanhiram S/o Nilaman Ade
Age : 37 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o As above.
4. Sangita W/o Kanhiram Ade
Age : 25 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o As above.
5. Santosh S/o Nilaman Ade
Age : years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o As above.
6. Sunita W/o Pandit Rathod
Age : yars, Occ :
R/o As above.
7. Latabai W/o Santosh Ade
Age : years, Occ :
R/o As above.
8. Saidas S/o Rathod
Age : years, Occ :
R/o As above.
9. Parubai W/o Saidas Ade
Age years, Occ :
R/o As above.
..Applicants
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::
2
V/s
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Kantabai W/o Raju Ade
Age : years, Occ : Nil,
R/o Takli Tanda, Tq.Khultabad,
Dist.Aurangabad.
..Respondents
.....
Mr.Deepak S. Manorkar, Advocate for applicants.
Mr.D.V. Tele, APP for respondent no.1.
Mr.Abhisek Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.2.
…..
(CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.)
ig DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19th April, 2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is
taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.
2. This is an application preferred by applicants
(orig.accused) seeking quashing and setting aside the
proceedings of R.C.C. No.368/2009 pending before
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad
arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 registered with
Khultabad police station for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::
3
Prohibition Act.
3. At the outset, marriage between applicant no.1-
Raju Nilaman Ade and complainant Sau.Kantabai Raju Ade
was solemnised on 27th April, 2000 and thereafter,
complainant Kantabai went to matrimonial home along
with Raju Ade for cohabitation purpose. However, since
the said complainant Kantabai was allegedly subjected
to cruelty and ill-treatment and also since unlawful
demand of money was allegedly made to her by
applicants, she filed complaint on 16.02.2008 against
applicants herein, and accordingly, C.R. No.24/2008
was registered with Khultabad police station under
sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. Applicant no.1 was arrested on 13.03.2008 and
later on he was released on bail and other applicants
were granted anticipatory bail. After completion of
investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed
against applicants under sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case was numbered
as R.C.C. No.368/2009 before learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad. Being aggrieved by
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::
4
the said registration of offence and filing of charge
sheet bearing R.C.C. No.368/2009, applicants (original
accused) have preferred the present application
requesting to quash and set aside the said C.R. No.
24/2008 and the entire proceedings of R.C.C. No.
368/2009.
4. It is the contentions of applicants that
registration of above crime at the instance of
complainant is result of temperamental differences and
implied imputations. It is submitted that all disputes
between complainant and applicants have been resolved
and complainant and applicant no.1-husband both are
residing happily together since last one year.
Applicants also contended that complainant and her
parents have no differences with any of applicants and
all of them are on good terms with each other, and
therefore, they wish to give an end to all the court
proceedings. It is stated by applicants that
complainant and applicants intended to compromise the
matter in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the
case of B.S. Joshi & others V/s State of Haryana &
anr. reported in 2003 All MR Cri.Pg 1162. It is
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::
5
contended by the applicants that there are no special
circumstances suggesting to allow to continue the
prosecution. It is also submitted that it is rather
more apparent that the ultimate conviction is bleak,
and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing the criminal prosecution to
continue, and hence, it is submitted that it is more
in the interest of justice to quash the proceeding, so
the parties may terminate all their disputes and live
happily together instead of fighting with each other
in the court of law for rest of their lives.
5. Original complainant namely Kantabai Raju Ade i.e.
respondent no.2 herein has filed affidavit in reply
and stated that she is wife of applicant no.1 Raju Ade
and she is original complainant. She also stated that
on 16.02.2008, upon her instance C.R. No.24/2008 came
to be registered with police station Khultabad against
present applicants under Section 498-A, 323, 504 r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code. She further stated that
registration of the above crime is a result of
temperamental differences. The recital in the
affidavit in reply is that all the disputes have
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::
6
already been resolved between the complainant and the
applicants and both are residing happily together
since more than a year at her matrimonial home. Said
affidavit in reply further states that respondent no.2
and her parents have no differences with any of the
applicants and they are on good terms and they wish to
give an end to all the court proceedings. She further
stated that she wants to compromise matter and there
are no special circumstances which suggest to allow to
continue the prosecution and no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing the criminal
prosecution to continue.
6. Learned counsel for the parties relied upon the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of B.S. Joshi & Ors V/s State of Haryana & anr
reported in 2003(4) LJSOFT (SC) 9. Para 14 of the said
judgment reads as under:
” 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
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::
7
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
powers 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.”
7. Reliance also can be placed on the Full bench
Ruling of this Court in the case of Anjusingh
Pramodsingh Rajput V/s State of Maharashtra & anr.
reported in 2009 All MR (Cri) 763, wherein it has been
held that powers under Section 482 of the Code
Criminal Procedure are not limited or affected by the
provisions of Section 320 of the Code. It is further
held that the inherent powers under section 482 of the
Code include powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or
any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court
or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide
magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be
exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of
the process of any Court and to make such orders as
may be necessary to give effect to any order under
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::
8
this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case.
The powers under section 482 are neither limited nor
curtailed by any other provisions of the Code
including section 320 of the Code. The Court could
exercise these powers in offences of any kind, whether
compoundable or non-compoundable. However, such
inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with
caution and in conformity with the precepts indicated
in paragraph 7.10 of the Judgment. It is further
observed that the powers to compound can be exercised
at the trial stage or even at the appellate state
subject to satisfaction of the conditions postulated
by the legislature under section 320 of the Code.
8. The Full Bench in the said judgment further
observed that powers of compounding are strictly
regulated by statutory powers while the inherent
powers of the Court are guided by judicial
pronouncements within the scope of section 482 of the
Code. Another very important facet of criminal
jurisprudence, as developed in the present times, is
with regard to the impact of compounding and/or
quashing of criminal proceedings in relation to an
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::
9
offence and its impact on the victim, witnesses and
the society at large. This must be treated as a
relevant consideration.
9. In the above referred judgment it is observed by
the Full Bench that when the Court has to consider
whether the criminal proceedings should be allowed to
continue or the same should be quashed, two aspects
are to be satisfied (i) whether the uncontroverted
allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie
establish the offence, and (ii) whether it is
expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a
prosecution to continue.
10. In view of the avernments made in the present
application by applicants as well as in view of the
recitals made by respondent no.2(original complainant)
in her affidavit in reply and also relying upon
aforesaid judicial pronouncement, there can not be any
dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure include powers to quash
F.I.R., investigation or any criminal proceedings
pending before the High Court or any Courts
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::
10
subordinate to it.
11. In the case at hand R.C.C. No.368/2009 is pending
before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Khultabad arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 registered
with Khultabad Police station for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, on the complaint lodged by
respondent no.2 herein. However, respondent no.2 i.e.
original complainant has filed affidavit in reply as
aforesaid and stated that she and her husband i.e.
applicant no.1 have compromised the matter and they
are residing together happily since more than one
year. The said affidavit in reply also recites that
all the disputes between her and applicants have been
resolved and now there are no differences between
complainant and applicants herein and they are on good
terms and she wish to give an end to all the court
proceedings. She further stated that there are no
special circumstances which suggest to allow to
continue the prosecution and no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing the criminal
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::
11
prosecution to continue.
12. Applicant no.1-Raju Nilaman Ade as well as
complainant Kantabai Raju Ade are present today in the
Court and both of them admitted that compromise took
place between them and they have been residing
together since last one year happily. The complainant
Kantabai Raju Ade has categorically stated that she
does not wish to prosecute R.C.C. No.368/2009 pending
before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Khultabad arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 registered
with Khultabad Police station furthermore, and
requested to quash and set aside the said proceedings.
13. In the circumstances, the complainant Kantabai
Raju Ade has no grievance against applicants herein,
and therefore, the exercise of continuation of
prosecution in R.C.C. No.368/2009 would be futile, and
therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice
not to permit said prosecution to continue. Hence,
this is a fit case to invoke inherent powers under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and
set aside the proceedings of R.C.C No.368/2009 pending
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:40 :::
12
before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Khultabad arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 registered
with Khultabad police station to meet the ends of
justice.
14. In the result, proceedings of R.C.C. No.368/2009
pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Khultabad arising out of C.R. No.24/2008
registered with Khultabad police station for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act stand quashed and set
aside and present criminal application stands disposed
of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid
terms.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE)
JUDGE
gas/cri1077.10
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:40 :::