Jharkhand High Court
Archana Kumari & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 11 May, 2011
Equivalent citations: 2011 (3) AIR JHAR R 605, (2011) 106 ALLINDCAS 891 (JHA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1630 of 2009
1. Archana Kumari
2. Sushant Shekhar Pandey @ Sushant Shekhar
3. Parbati Devi
4. Shankar Pandey
5. Prabhat Ranjan Pandey-- - - -- -- -- --Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shivangi (Julie)-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Opposite Parties
---
CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K. SINHA
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s. Kalyan Roy & Ashok Kr., Advocates
For the Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. D.K. Prasad, A.P.P.
-----
20/11.5.2011Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of their criminal proceedings including the order dated 17.1.2009 by which cognizance of the offence was taken against them alleged under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the SDJM, Ranchi in Namkum P.S. Case No.71 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.1445 of 2008.
2. Informant Shivangi @ Julie i.e. the opposite party No.2 herein having received the notice, entered appearance by executing vakalatnama, who is represented through Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate.
3. A joint petition of compromise on behalf of the informant-opposite party No.2 and the accused-petitioners has been filed on 28.3.2011, supplemented by another counter-affidavit on 8.4.2011. Again a joint petition of compromise on behalf of the parties has been filed on 6.5.2011 and all the three petitions are taken up together for consideration on the issue of compromise proposed on behalf of the parties in the background of the law settled by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675.
4. Prosecution case of the informant-opposite party No.2 before the police was that she was married to the petitioner No.5 Prabhat Ranjan Pandey on 29.4.2007 and immediately after the marriage, her in-laws snatched all the gifts and jewelleries presented to her by her parents on the eve of her marriage. It was further alleged that she was assaulted at the hands of accused persons regularly and she had occasion to consult Doctors for her treatment of the injuries caused by such assault. The reason for such assault was non-fulfillment of the desired dowry in cash. Ultimately, she was driven out from her matrimonial home by the accused persons and that they had also assaulted the members of her family. On presentation of her written report Namkum P.S. Case No.71 of 2008 was registered under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
5. The joint petition for compromise filed on behalf of the informant and the accused on 28.3.2011 indicated that during pendency of this criminal miscellaneous petition, the parties entered into compromise and none of them wanted to proceed with the case. Compromise was proposed on the following terms:
(a) that the husband of the informant Prabhat Ranjan Pandey would pay Rs.4,75,000/- to the informant-opposite party No.2 Shivangi @ Julie towards her permanent alimony through the Bank Draft and on receipt of the same, she would declare having no further due against him and having no further claim against any of the accused.
(b) that the informant Shivangi @ Julie on receipt of the entire amount would withdraw criminal case being Namkum P.S. Case No.71 of 2008, which is pending before the SDJM, Ranchi and would file a joint petition of compromise.
Another case vide Namkum P.S. Case No.113 of 2009 would also be withdrawn by her pending in the court of Sri S.K. Upadhaya, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
(c) that both the parties would withdraw their cases, which were lodged against each other and they would not indulge in further litigation.
(d) that both the parties would file a joint petition of divorce with mutual consent before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi within a week.
6. A separate affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2 Shivangi @ Julie on 8.4.2011. Opposite party No.2 stated on oath by putting her signature as Shivangi @ Pushpa Kumari Upadhyay in the affidavit that as per terms and conditions of the joint compromise, she has already accepted two Demand Drafts vide D.D. No.015937, dated 25.3.2011, drawn on S.B.I., Bhawnathpur, in favour of Pushpa Kumari Upadhyay for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and another vide D.D. No.016327, dated 5.4.2011, drawn on the same Bank, in favour of Pushpa Kumari Upadhyay for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- (Xerox copy of the Demand Drafts are annexed) and undertook to file a divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act along with the petitioner No.5 within a week.
7. In the 3rd petition, filed on behalf of the parties, by way of I.A. No.904 of 2011 on 6.5.2011, all the facts of the terms of the compromise are reiterated and it was admitted that the opposite party No.2 has already received the permanent alimony by accepting two Demand Drafts, total amounting to Rs.4,75,000/- on her full satisfaction and she undertook to withdraw all the other cases that she had filed against the petitioners pending before the different courts and that she has filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with the petitioner No.5 Prabhat Ranjan Pandey. This interlocutory application has been supported by affidavit duly sworn by the informant-opposite party No.2 Shivangi @ Julie @ Pushpa and the accused-petitioners, duly identified by their respective counsels.
8. It was finally brought on the interlocutory application that the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners may be allowed by quashing their criminal prosecution, in view of the B.S. Joshi's case (supra).
9. Heard the counsels, appearing on behalf of the parties, who fairly conceded the facts as contained in all the three petitions, referred to hereinbefore.
10. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia versus Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, reported in (1988)1 SCC 692, 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 feature 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, chances 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 may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.
11. It was observed in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) that the duty was cast upon the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
12. In the facts and circumstances, I find that the settlement between the parties in the instant case is not based on the compromise for leading a happy conjugal life, rather the husband and the wife in the instant case settled the dispute with severance of their marital relationship once forever against consideration of permanent alimony agreeing to file a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
13. In view of that matter and relying upon the principles laid down in B.S. Joshi's case (supra), it would not be proper and conducive to allow the criminal prosecution of the accused persons i.e. the petitioners herein to continue.
14. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding of the petitioners (1) Archana Kumari (2) Sushant Shekhar Pandey @ Sushant Shekhar (3) Parbati Devi (4) Shankar Pandey and (5) Prabhat Ranjan Pandey, arising out of Namkum P.S. Case No.71 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.1445 of 2008, pending before the SDJM, Ranchi is quashed.
(D.K. Sinha, J.) S.B./A.F.R.