Allahabad High Court
Santosh Tiwari Son Of Uday Prakash ... vs State Of U.P. And Smt. Laxmi Daughter Of ... on 25 January, 2007
Author: K.N. Sinha
Bench: K.N. Sinha
JUDGMENT K.N. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Goswami learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved for quashing of the proceedings in Case No. 5412 of 2004 (State v. Santosh Tiwari and Ors.) arising out of case crime No. 639/2002 under Sections 498A/323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act police station Sihani Gate district Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad.
3. The prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. is that on 28.5.2001, applicant No. 1 Santosh Tiwari was married with opposite party No. 2 Smt, Laxmi. On 26.8.2002, opposite party No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. for harassment and demand of dowry. On 6.9.2002, a charge sheet was submitted against the applicants under Section 498A/323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad and on 27.9.2002, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. On 19.11.2003, applicant No. 1 filed a divorce petition. Thereafter opposite party No. 2 filed a case against applicant No. 1 and his family members under Section 406 IPC and also filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance.
4. During the pendency of the petition, the parties decided to settle their disputes by way of compromise deed filed before the Family Court Faridabad on 2.4.2005. Accordingly bank draft of Rs. 2,25,000/- was deposited by the applicant No. 1 in the Family Court. The Judge, Family Court Faridabad passed a judgment dated 2.4.2005 by which marriage was dissolved by way of mutual consent. Applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 moved an application for compounding the case No. 289/2004 filed under Section 406 IPC pending in the court of 1st Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ghaziabad and on 30.4.2005 itself the said application was allowed by the court concerned and proceedings of the said case were dropped.
5. On 30.4.2005, a joint application was moved in case No. 26/2005 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending before the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ghaziabad to drop the proceedings which is still pending before the said court.
6. On 30.4.2005, a joint application by the parties was also moved in case No. 5412/2004 under Sections 498A/323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) Ghaziabad which was rejected by order dated 30.4.2005 of the court concerned as the offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was noncompoundable.
7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the compromise deed. It appears that both the parties have entered into a compromise.
8. In the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (46) ACC 779, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
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 the Code.
9. Thus, though the offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable still the bar created by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal I Procedure would not come in the way.
10. Hon'ble The Supreme Court, in the case of Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Anr. v. Sambhahjirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. reported in 1988 (25) Allahabad Criminal Cases, page 163, has held as under:
The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the 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. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chance of an ultimate conviction is 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 even though it may be at a preliminary stage.
11. Thus, in view of the above, when the parties have come to the term there would be no use to prolong a criminal prosecution which will result in acquittal. When the complainant does not want to prosecute the case any more the chance of ultimate conviction is almost nil. The procedural delay in conclusion of the trial would simply linger the matter and may create a bad blood at any stage.
12. Consequently, the Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The proceedings of Case No. 5412 of 2004 (State v. Santosh Tiwari and Ors.) arising out of case crime No. 639/2002 under Sections 498A/323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act police station Sihani Gate district Ghaziabad, pending in the court of judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad are quashed against applicants Santosh Tiwari, Uday Prakash Tiwari and Smt. Raj Kumari only. The applicants, if on bail bond, need not surrender and sureties stand discharged.