Satish Harilal Gupta And ORS. v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 233 OF 2015 Satish Harilal Gupta & Ors.

.. Petitioners v/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..Respondents Mr. Omprakash Dubey for the petitioners Mrs. K.G. Karkera for respondent no.2 Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the respondent State CORAM: RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

DATED: 18th MARCH, 2015.

P.C.

1.

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings being C.C. No.608 of 2012, pending on the file of learned JMFC, 5th Court, Thane. The said case is arising out of FIR No.402 of 2011, registered with Mira Road Police Station, Mumbai against the petitioners at the instance of respondent no.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC.

2.

The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 got married on 19.01.2006. However, matrimonial dispute between them gave rise to the filing of the present FIR.

3.

During the pendency of the trial of the above referred matrimonial case, parties have arrived at settlement and in pursuance of the understanding between them, they have filed the present writ petition for quashing the criminal proceedings of the said CR, by consent. The respondent no.2 has filed affidavit dated 6th February, 2015. In paragraph 4, she has stated that she do not want to proceed with the subject complaint. She has also given no objection for allowing the aforesaid writ petition. On specific query made by us, she submitted that she has no objection for quashing the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings. 4.

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint, it would reveal that the dispute between the parties is purely a

matrimonial dispute. In that view of the matter, we find that in the interest of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed.

5.

The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] has held that in the event of settlement of matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498A can be quashed, even though, the said offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below:

"14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that nonexercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian

Penal Code.

15.

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."

6.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) ( RANJIT MORE, J.)