Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shiv Lal vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 6 September, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
Crlmp3022/2016
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER
IN
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.3022/2016
(With Stay Appl. No.3132/2016)
Anoop Verma S/o Sh. Rambharosi Lal,
Resident of Kamla Sadan, Bhagat Singh
Colony, Dadwada, Kota, Rajasthan
...Accused-petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Manju Verma W/o Shri Anoop
Verma, D/o Shri Tofaram Narela,
Resident of House No.71, Swadheen
Maarg, Hawa Sadak, Bais Godown,
Jaipur
...Complainant-respondent-wife
2. State of Rajasthan through
Public Prosecutor
...Respondent
Date of Order ::: 06.09.2016
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Mr. Narendra Mewara, counsel for accused-petitioner
Mr. A.D. Khan, Public Prosecutor, for the State
Mr. Raghuraj Singh Rajawat, counsel for complainant-
respondent-wife
####
By the Court:-
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused- petitioner Anoop Verma for setting aside the order dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Criminal Case No.61/2015 titled State Vs. Anoop Verma, by which the learned Magistrate refused to grant permission for compounding the offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, however, ordered for compounding the offence under Section 406 IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, i.e. husband and wife.
It is contended that the respondent-wife filed Crlmp3022/2016 // 2 // a criminal complaint in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, on various allegations including demand of dowry, which was sent to the Police Station Mahila Thana Jaipur (South), Jaipur, for investigation. The police thereafter registered F.I.R. No.100/2014 for offence under Sections 498A, 376, 377, 313, 323, 406 and 120B of the IPC against accused-petitioner and other family members. After usual investigation, police filed challan against accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the court concerned. The trial court framed charges for the said offences against accused- petitioner, vide order dated 15.06.2016. During pendency of the aforesaid criminal trial, complainant filed an application before the concerned court that the parties have settled the dispute and that she does not want to press that complaint against the accused- petitioner. According to the said compromise, the complainant-wife has received permanent alimony for his all types of maintenance from the accused-petitioner. A copy of the compromise-deed was produced before the court below along-with application with request to drop the criminal proceedings by compounding the offence. The learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 15.06.2016, partly allowed the application by compounding the offence under Section 406 IPC, however, refused to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence this criminal miscellaneous petition.
Learned counsel for accused-petitioner, in support of the case, has relied on judgments of the Crlmp3022/2016 // 3 // Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another - (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab - (2012) 10 SCC 303, and argued that in view of the ratio of these judgments, the offence against the accused-petitioner under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are compoundable and the criminal proceedings are liable to be dropped.
Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent- wife submits that the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court may be ordered to be compromised in view of the above relied judgments, according to which offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are compoundable and thus the proceedings against the accused-petitioner be ordered to be dropped.
Both the parties have personally appeared before the court and they have been identified by their respective counsel and their presence is recorded.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The question that fell for determination before the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another - (2003) 4 SCC 675, was about the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court therein observed that in matrimonial disputes of this kind have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, Crlmp3022/2016 // 4 // IPC, not only against the husband but his other family members also. The Supreme Court held 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, and 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, which is not the object of the provision.
Indisputably, in the present case the accused- petitioner-husband and complainant-respondent-wife amicably settled their disputes and arrived at compromise and agreed to end the criminal proceedings in the case. As per order of this court dated 22.08.2016, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this court has recorded statement of complainant-respondent- wife Smt. Manju Verma, wherein she has stated that a compromise has been arrived at between her and Shri Anoop Verma and his family members and that she does not want to proceed against her husband and his family members in the F.I.R. No.100/2014.
Though, the learned Magistrate, vide its order dated 03.08.2016, partly allowed the compromise application filed by both the parties under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C., and acquitted the accused- petitioner from the charge of offence under Section 406 Crlmp3022/2016 // 5 // IPC but proceeding for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is still continuing against the accused-petitioner. When the whole matter has been compounded between the parties, there is no purpose to continue the criminal proceedings between them.
In the result, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in the Criminal Case No.61/2015 titled State Vs. Anoop Verma, pending before the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, arising out of the F.I.R. No.100/2014, Police Station Mahila Thana (South), Jaipur, are dropped. Consequently, the F.I.R. No.100/2014, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (South), Jaipur, is also quashed.
This also disposes of stay application.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//116 (court no.8)