Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Sagar And Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 12 January, 2010
Author: Ravindra Singh
Bench: Ravindra Singh
Court No. 54
Criminal Misc. application No. 9789 of 2009
Sanjeev Sagar and others Versus State of U.P. And another
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Heard Sri Sameer Garg, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Janardan Yadav, and Sri Shiv Ram Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No.2.
This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6558 of 2006 arising out of the charge sheet No. 638 of 2006 in case crime No. 639 of 2009 under section 498-A,323,504,506 I.P.C. read with section ¾ of D.P. Act P.S. Kotwali pending in the court of learned C.J.M. Bulandshshar.
It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 that the proceedings of the present case have been initiated by O.P. No.2, wife of the applicant no.1, Sanjeev Sagar, due to matrimonial dispute, now they have entered into a compromise at Delhi Meditation Centre Karkardooma Court Delhi on 11.2.2009, they have arrived at an amicable settlement on the following terms.
1.That the parties have agreed to part their ways peacefully and seek divorce with mutual consent.
2.That the accused Sanjeev Sagar shall withdraw the divorce petition filed by him against the complainant Hemlata, presently pending in a court in Bulandshahar, U.P. within a period of two weeks from today.
3.That after the withdrawal of the suit for divorce from the Court in Bulandshahar, U.P. Both the parties shall file a joint petition for divorce with mutual consent in District Courts Delhi within a period of two weeks of the withdrawal of the divorce petition pending in a court in Bulandshahar U.P.
4.That the accused Sanjeev Sagar shall pay an amount of Rs. One lakh by way of bank draft to the complainant Hemlata at the time of first motion in divorcée proceedings in the court of law at Delhi.
5.That the accused Sanjeev Sagar shall pay an amount of Rs. One lakh to the complainant Hemlata at the time of second motion in divorce proceedings in the court of law at Delhi.
6.That the accused Sanjeev Sagar shall pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- by way of bank draft to the complainant Hemlata at the time of withdrawal of her complaint u/s 12 of Domestic violence Act presently pending in the court of Ms. Sunena Sharma Ld. MM Karkardooma Court, on the date fixed by the Court for this purpose.
7.That the accused Sanjeev Sagar along with other accused persons( of the case u/s 498A,323,504,506 of IPC and ¾ of the Dowry 2 Prohibition Act in case FIR No. 590/06,PS Kotwali Nagar Bulandshshar, UP) shall move a petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad for quashing the said FIR. That the accused persons shall pay an amount of Rs. Two lakhs by way of a bank draft to the complainant Hemlata at the time of quashing of the FIR. That the complainant Hemlata shall cooperate with all the accused persons in quashing the aforesaid FIR. That beside the total amount of Rs. 4.5 lakhs referred to above, no dowry article or any article of Istridhan shall change hands. This amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs settles at the pending dispute between the parties and the dispute relating to the past or futrue maintenance or permanent alimony.
8.That the parties shall not claim any litigation expenses from each other for the present litigation or the petitions to be filed by them and referred to above for putting end to all the disputes.
9.It is mad clear that all the bank drafts payable to the complainant Hemlata, referred to above, shall be payable at Bulandshahar, U.P.
10.Both the parties have voluntarily undertaken to abide by the terms of settlement.
On the basis of the aforementioned settlement O.P. No.2, amount of Rs 2,50,000/- has been paid to O.P. No.2, the remaining balance of Rs. 2,00,000/- was payable at the time of quashing of the F.I.R. of the present case, a draft No. 0219525 of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been deposited by applicant no.1 in the Court of learned C.J.M. Bulandshahar on 7.12.2009, according to the above mentioned settlement both the parties have decided to live separately so that they may be able to lead their life peacefully.In case, the proceedings are kept pending, some new problem may be created in the peaceful life of the husband and wife. In view of B.S. Joshi and another Versus State of Hariyana and another (2003) (4) S.C.C. 675 the proceedings of the above mentioned case may be quashed.
Considering the submissions made by the kerned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. settlement dated 11.2.2009 it appears that an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has already been paid by applicant no.1 to O.P. No.2 and a draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been deposited in the court of leared C.J.M. Bulandshahar on 7.12.2009, O.P. No.2, his wife applicant no.1, they have decided to live separately to lead their life independently. The O.P. No.2 does not want to proceed further against the applicant, in such a situation, the pendency fo the proceedings of the above mentioned case shall not serve any fruitful purpose, it shall be a fruitless exercise, it may create some other problem 3 in their life so to meet the ends of justice the proceedings of the above mentioned case may be quashed, in view of B.S. Joshi and another Versus State of Hariyana and another (2003) (4) S.C.C. 675. The Apex court has taken a view in the case of in the case of B.S. Joshi and another Versus State of Hariyana and another (2003) (4) S.C.C. 675 in which similar circumstances have been considered which read as under :
9.The High Court has also relied upon the decision in case of Surendra Nath Mohanty case for the proposition that offence declared to be non-
compoundable cannot be compounded at all even with the permission of the court. That is of course so. The offences which can be compounded are mentioned in Section 320. Those offences which are not mentioned therein cannot be permitted to be compounded. In Mohanty case the appellants were convicted by the trial court for offence under section 307. The High Court altered the conviction of the appellants and convicted them for offence under Section 326 and imposed sentence of six months. The trial court had sentenced the appellants for a period of five years' RI. The application for compounding was, however, dismissed by the High Court. This Court holding that the offence for which the appellants had been convicted was non- compoundable and, therefore, it could not be permitted to be compounded but considering that the parties had settled their dispute outside the court, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. It is, however, to be borne in mind that in the present case the appellants had not sought compounding of the offences. They had approached the Court seeking quashing of FIR under the circumstances abovestated.
10.In State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Curt said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provisions which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the "negative" It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on fact declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bonafides.
11.In Madhavao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the court, changes of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court 4 may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.
12.The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
13.The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different contest, in G.V. Rao Vs. LH.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute 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 reasons 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" case" in different courts.
The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case, is applicable in this case also. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6558 of 2006 arising out of the charge sheet No. 638 of 2006 in case crime No. 639 of 2009 under section 498-A,323,504,506 I.P.C. read with section ¾ of D.P. Act P.S. Kotwali pending in the court of learned C.J.M. Bulandshshar. are hereby quashed. It is directed that the draft no.0219525 deposited by applicant no.1 in the court of learned C.J.M. Bulandsahar in criminal case no. 6558 of 2006 shall be handed over to O.P. No.2 for its encashment.
Accordingly this application is allowed.
DT. 12.1.2010 NA