Chattisgarh High Court
Aman Gothi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 January, 2023
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1623 of 2022
1. Aman Gothi S/o Akhilesh Goth Aged About 28 Years R/o Thana
Road, Kothi Bazaar, Baitul, Police Station Baitul, District : Betul,
Madhya Pradesh
2. Sanjula Gothi D/o Akhilesh Goth Aged About 52 Years R/o Thana
Road, Kothi Bazaar, Baitul, Police Station Baitul, District : Betul,
Madhya Pradesh
3. Kamla Gothi W/o Lt. Surendra Gothi Aged About 78 Years R/o
Thana Road, Kothi Bazaar, Baitul, Police Station Baitul, District :
Betul, Madhya Pradesh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahila Thana, District
Durg.
2. Harsha Gothi W/o Aman Gothi Aged About 28 Years R/o Kothi
Bazaar, Near Shanti Jewelers, Thana Road, District : Betul, Madhya
Pradesh
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Mohd. Amir Khan, Advocate. For State/respondent No.1 : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. A.G.For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 12/01/2023
1) This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR registered under Crime No. 86/2022 at Police Station: Mahila Thana, Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 498 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2) Learned counsel for petitioners would submit during pendency of criminal proceedings before the Court below, on 21.09.2022 the parties i.e. petitioners and respondent No. 2, have entered into a compromise out of the court, settling all the disputes and differences between them. Hence, criminal proceedings pending against Page 2 of 3 petitioners before the Court below concerned may be quashed in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of B.S. Joshi & ors vs. State of Haryana & another , reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and K.Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226.
3) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has supported the factum of compromise and submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed with criminal case any further and he is not having any objection if criminal proceedings pending against petitioners are quashed.
4) Heard learned counsel for parties and perused record.
5) Perusal of the allegations made in FIR clearly reveals that consequent upon certain matrimonial and domestic disputes that have arisen between the parties pursuant to marriage of petitioner No. 1 with respondent No. 2, instant FIR is lodged by the respondent No. 2 against petitioners. Both the parties therein have entered into compromise dated 21.09.2022, settling all their disputes and differences.
6) On 09.01.2023, the parties were directed to appear before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 09.01.2023 for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. Perusal of statements of parties recorded by the Additional Registrar (Judicial) reveals that the parties have entered into compromise without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one. Parties have stated in their statements that during pendency of this petition, they have entered into compromise with respondent No.2 and therefore, the FIR No. 86 of 2022 may be quashed based on compromise. Respondent No.2 admitted in her statement that she has entered into compromise with petitioners without any undue influence, pressure or allurement and in view of compromise arrived at between them, she does not want any action against the petitioners based on her complaint and the same be quashed.
7) In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser.
Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial Page 3 of 3 dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.
8) Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash proceedings in respect of criminal cases arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even though they are not compoundable. In case of B.S. Joshi (supra) & K. Srinivas Rao (supra) also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, even if the offences are non-compoundable one.
9) Therefore, keeping in mind above decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, allegations in FIR and the fact that parties have amicably settled all their disputes, this petition is allowed, FIR No. 86/2022 dated 07.09.2022 registered at Police Station: Mahila Thana, Durg (C.G.) is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Saurabh