Jayabai Kurmi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 November, 2022

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jayabai Kurmi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 November, 2022

This criminal revision u/s 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been Date: 2022.11.04 10:14:31 IST filed by the applicants against impugned judgment of conviction and order of 2 sentence dated 17.09.2016 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Additional Judge, Narsinghpur in Criminal Appeal No.90/2014 (arising out of judgment dated 28.05.2014 passed in Criminal Case No.2222/2010) whereby the applicants have been convicted for offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02-02 years each, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06-06 months each and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02-02 years each with fine of Rs.500/--Rs.500/- each respectively, with default stipulations.

2. As per prosecution case the complainant-Smt. Asha Bai was married to applicant No.3 on 09.05.1998, till 4-5 years of her marriage, she lived happily at the house of the applicants, thereafter one daughter was born after three years, due to which, applicants started harassing the complainant and also demanded dowry and a four wheeler. Due to harassment, the complainant came to her parental house where she lived for more than 5 years. Thereafter, compromise taken place between them and she went back to her matrimonial house. On 26.03.2010 appellant No.3 assaulted the complainant. She informed about the incident to her father on telephone and went to her parental house. Thereafter, on 26.03.2010, a complaint was lodged against the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 17.09.2016 convicted the applicants for offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Signature Not Verified SAN sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02-02 years each, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2022.11.04 10:14:31 IST Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06-06 months each and Section 4 of 3 Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02-02 years each with fine of Rs.500/--Rs.500/- each respectively, with default stipulations.

4. Being aggrieved with judgment of conviction and order of sentence o f the trial Court. The applicants preferred a Criminal Appeal bearing No.90/2014 before the lower appellate Court. By the impugned judgment the lower appellate convicted and sentenced the applicants as stated hereinabove. Hence, applicants filed instant revision against impugned judgment dated 17.09.2016.

5. This Court on 23.09.2016 while admitting the revision suspended the jail sentence of the applicants. However, during pendency of instant revision the parties have entered into compromise and accordingly, filed interlocutory applications being I.A.No.15982/2022 under Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C. and I.A.No.15984/2022 under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. stating that the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of Court and now they have no dispute amongst themselves and they have developed cordial relations. The applications have been duly supported by affidavits of both the parties. Vide order dated 01.09.2022 the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar (Judicial-II) for verification of their compromise on 15.09.2022.

6. On 15.09.2022, the parties have appeared before the Registrar (Judicial-II) who submitted his report stating that accused persons and complainant have personally appeared before him and they have been identified by their respective counsels. The complainant filed an application under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C for compromise with the Revisionists namely No.1-Jayabai Kurmi, No.2-Omprakash Kurmi and No.3-Sobran Singh Kurmi and stated that Signature Not Verified SAN they have voluntarily entered into compromise without any inducement or threat Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2022.11.04 10:14:31 IST out of own free will and volition and without any threat, inducement or pressure.

Both the parties have stated that they are living separately and the decree of divorce has been passed. The complainant has a daughter who is aged about 18 years and she is residing with her. She does not want to proceed further against the revisionists.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that compromise application filed under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. may be allowed. He has placed reliance on Criminal Appeal No.447/2013 Jitendra Raghuwanshi and others Vs. Babita Raghuwanshi and another reported in judgment dated 15.03.2013 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 6462 of 2012 which is the order passed by three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in which the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the parties amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement and a compromise/settlement application was filed for dropping of the criminal proceedings because the wife-respondent also filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the appellants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered that the matrimonial disputes have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. In some cases subsequently with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/settlement. In a case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 in an identical circumstance, the Apex Court Signature Not Verified SAN held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the dispute is Date: 2022.11.04 10:14:31 IST 5 entirely private and the parties are willing to settle their disputes amicably. After considering the law laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and explaining the decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Surendra Nath Mohanty & another Vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. & another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others, (1998) 5 SCC 749, this Court held:

"8..... We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power."

Considering matrimonial matters, this Court also held:

"12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes."

8. Thus, in a case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) also held:

"2. the important question that falls for determination in the instant appeal is about the ambit and scope of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") in quashing of the criminal proceedings in non- compoundable offences relating to matrimonial disputes".

"14. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Signature Not Verified SAN Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Under Date: 2022.11.04 10:14:31 IST these circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment 6 of the High Court dated 04.07.2012 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2877 of 2012 and quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No.4166 of 2011 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Indore and set-aside the impugned judgement of the High Court passed in M.Cr.C.No.2877 of 2012 and quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No.4166 of 2011.

9. Recently by Notification No.14 of 2019 for amendment under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C. the new provisions may be added according to that under Section 498A-The woman subjected to cruelty: Provided that a minimum period of six months shall have elapsed from the date of an application for compounding the offence and the court, if satisfied that the compounding is in the interest of that woman, may accept the application provided none of the parties have withdrawn such application in the intervening period.

10. In the light of principles laid down in Criminal Appeal No.447/2013, Jitendra Raghuwanshi Vs. Babita Raghuwanshi and others reported in judgment dated 15.03.2013 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.6462 of 2012 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of securing the ends of justice proceedings against the applicants are hereby quashed in the present matrimonial dispute because the parties are willing to settle it amicable, the applicants are treated to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The applicants be discharged of their bail bonds. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Courts below for record and compliance.

11. This revision is disposed of accordingly.




Signature Not Verified

                                                                                             (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
  SAN




Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY
                                                                                                   JUDGE
Date: 2022.11.04 10:14:31 IST       Nitesh
                                     7




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY
Date: 2022.11.04 10:14:31 IST

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court