Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Kumar Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 June, 2016
Misc. Criminal Case No.6229/2016
22/06/2016:
Shri Mohd.Ali with Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocates for the
applicants.
Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1-
State.
Shri Sudeep Patel, Advocate for the respondent no.2 /complainant.
Applicant no.1 Krishna Kumar Rawat is also present in person. He is identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
Heard learned counsel for the parties finally. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' has been filed by the applicants for quashing of order dated 29.03.16, passed in Criminal Appeal No.93/2015 by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Itarsi (Hoshangabad) whereby the compromise application filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.by the applicants was dismissed, and further to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1754/2006 and judgment dated 13.05.15 passed by JMFC, Itarsi, District-Hoshangabad.
It is undisputed fact that marriage of applicant no.1 and respondent no.2/complainant was solemnized on 27.05.2005 at Itarsi as per Hindu rites and customs. Due to problems, the respondent no.2/complainant had lodged an FIR against the applicants at PS-Itarsi on which offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the applicants . The applicants were charge sheeted. Learned JMFC,Itarsi has convicted the applicants under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to R.I. For one year and fine of Rs.2,000/-, and R.I. For one year and fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively with default stipulations. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants filed Criminal Appeal No.93/2015. During the pendency of appeal, compromise had taken place between the applicants and the respondents no.2 and on the basis of the aforesaid compromise entered into between the parties, they filed an application before the appellate Court for compounding the offence and for quashment of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1754/2006. Learned appellate Court dismissed the application filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.holding that the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not compoundable.
As per order of this Court, willingness and consent of the parties have been recorded before Registrar (J-II) on dated 11.05.16. Respondent no.2 Smt. Bharti Rawat (complainant before the trial Court) and applicants no.1 to 3, namely, Krishna Kumar Rawat, Smt. Shivwati Rawat and Rakeksh Choudhary were present in person. They were identified by their respective counsel. Both parties submit that they are ready and willing to resolve their disputes voluntarily and without any undue influence or pressure. There is peace between them and their other disputes have also been resolved and they want to withdraw the cases filed against each other. In the light of the aforesaid factual position, it is apparent that the applicants and the respondent no.2 have entered into compromise voluntarily without any fear, undue influence or pressure.
True it is that the offences punishable under Section 498- A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not made compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C, hence the learned appellate Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application of the compromise filed by the parties , but at this stage under the inherent powers enumerated under Section 482 of the Code, the proceedings pending in the trial Court in Criminal Appeal No. 93/15 arising out of of Criminal Case No.1754/2006 for offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act along with it's FIR in the light of factum of compromise could be quashed by this Court. My such approach is based on law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and others reported in AIR 2003 (I) MPWN 145 = 2003 SC 1386 in which it was held as under :
"14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the IPC was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A 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 IPC.
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 Cr.P.C."
In view of aforesaid dictum, this Court is very well under his authority to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Appeal No.93/15 arising out of Criminal Case No.1754/06 and judgment dated 13.05.15 passed by JMFC, Itarsi, District-Hoshangabad.
In view of above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand, this petition stands allowed. The entire proceedings of Criminal Appeal No.93/15 arising out of Criminal Case No.1754/06 and judgment dated 13.05.15 passed by JMFC, Itarsi, District-Hoshangabad and all other consequential proceedings including FIR are hereby quashed. Applicants are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A /34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Let the trial Court be intimated in this regard.
(Subhash Kakade) Judge jk