Aswin Sriram v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.06.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.19242 and 16215 of 2014 and MP(MD).No.1 of 2014 in Crl.O.P(MD)No. 19242 of 2014 and MP(MD).Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 of 2015 in Crl.O.P(MD).No. 16215 of 2014

1. Aswin Sriram

2. Alagarsamy

3. Geetha ... Petitioners/A1 to A3 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19242/2014 V.Dhivya Sri ... Petitioner/A4 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16215/2014 -vs1.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.8 of 2014) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant(in both OP's) 2.

Loga ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant (in both OP's) Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.242 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur and quash the same with regard to the petitioners.

(Prayer amended as per the order made in MP(MD).No.1/15 in Crl.O.P (MD).No. 19242/2014 and Crl MP(MD).No. 2/2015 in Crl.O.P(MD)No. 16215/2014 of this Court dated 21.07.2015) For Petitioners :

Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja (in both OP's) For R1 :

Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) (in both OP's) For R2 :

Mr.R.Gandhi (in Crl.O.P.(MD)19242/14) Mr.M.Jagadeesh Pandian (in Crl.O.P.(MD)16215/14) ******

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.242 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties. In Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19242 of 2014, the petitioners are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent respectively. The petitioner, in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16215 of 2014, is the sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent.

2. It is seen that the case in Crime No.8 of 2014 has been registered by the 1st respondent herein for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur in C.C.No.242 of 2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused would submit that the 2nd respondent has preferred the present complaint in order to achieve her nefarious claim and has dragged A2 to A4 into this matrimonial litigation with ill-motive, being family members of her husband and that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16215 of 2014 is having her residence at Kerala. It is further submitted that as the matter has been settled amicably, both the parties are not willing to proceed with the case.

4. A joint memo of compromise entered into between the defacto complainant and the accused has been filed by the parties and the petitioners/accused and the second respondent are personally present before this Court; their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the ends of justice and in order to avoid the misuse of the process of law, the prosecution must be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would contend that there is an embargo under Section 320 (9) Cr.P.C., under which no offence shall be compounded except as provided by the said Section and therefore, these proceedings cannot be quashed.

7. The moot question that demands attention is that when once the Legislature thought it fit to make the offence under Section 498-A as non-compoundable, whether under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court has got inherent power to permit the parties to compound such offence.

7.1.

An argument against compoundability is that the permission to compound would amount to legal recognition of violence against women and that the factum of reconciliation cannot be a justifiable ground to legally condone the violence. The acceptance of such an argument would imply that the priority of law should be to take the criminal proceedings to their logical end and to inflict punishment on the husband irrespective of the mutual desire to patch up the differences.

7.2. A balanced and holistic approach is called for in handling a sensitive issue affecting the family and social relations. The emphasis should not be merely on the punitive aspect of the law. In matters of this nature, the law should not come in the way of genuine reconciliation or revival of harmonious relations between the parties.

7.3. The Law Commission of India in its 154th report (1996) reiterated in the 177th Report (2001) recommended inclusion of S.498A in the Table appended to Section 320(2) so that it can be compounded with the permission of the Court.

7.4. Further, Justice Malimath Committee's Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System strongly supported the plea to make Section 498-A IPC, a compoundable offence.

7.5. The Ministry of Home Affairs in its 111th Report on the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill 2003 (August 2005), observed thus: "It is desirable to provide a chance to the estranged spouses to come together and therefore it is proposed to make the offence u/s 498A IPC, a compoundable one by inserting this Section in the Table under subsection(2) of Section 320 of CrPC".

7.6. The Apex court, in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 ("B.S. Joshi"), has firmly laid down the proposition that in order to subserve the ends of justice, the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings at the instance of husband and wife who have amicably settled the matter and are desirous of putting end to the acrimony. The correctness of the aforesaid decision was however doubted by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2010 (12) SCALE 461. Hence, the matter was referred to a larger bench. The question before the larger bench (comprising of Hon'ble Justice Lodha, Hon'ble Justice Dave and Hon'ble Justive S.J.

Mukhopadhyay) concerned the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable Under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. It was held, eventually, in Gian Singh v.

criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. ...The High Court may quash criminal proceedings pertaining to offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim husband and estranged wife.

7.7. A Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the recent judgment of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 6462 of 2012), has again affirmed B.S. Joshi and has held that, "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 Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code.

8. The 2nd respondent / defacto complainant has stated that there is no claim whatsoever pending from her husband and that her husband has consented to give Rs.9,00,000/- at the time of completion of HMOP proceedings pending before the Family Court, Srivilliputtur and therefore, she has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

8.1. It is pertinent to mention here that in consequence of the amicable settlement between the parties, there is no possibility of the defacto complainant giving evidence against the accused person and the witnesses would become hostile and ultimately, this case will not end in any conviction and therefore, the continuation of criminal case will be an abuse of the process of Court.

9. When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and others vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on 28.01.2016, this Court considered the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in several cases, namely, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish and others [(2015) 8 SCC 307] and observed as under:

"11..... As held by the Apex Court, insofar the offences arising out of matrimonial dispute, relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature, are concerned, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, in case the parties resolve their entire disputes amicably among themselves.......".

10. Hence, considering the nature of allegations made; that in view of the joint memo of compromise, it can safely be concluded that no useful purpose would be served in keeping these matters pending.

In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.242 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur are hereby quashed against the petitioners/A1 to A4. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

1.

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur.

2.

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Srivilliputhur,Virudhunagar District.

3.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

+2cc M/s.P.T.RAMESH RAJA,ADVOCATE IN SR.NO. 30234, 30235 ar JA-DB/11.08.2016/5P:6C Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.19242 and 16215 of 2014 and MP(MD).No.1 of 2014 in Crl.O.P(MD)No. 19242 of 2014 and MP(MD).Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 of 2015 in Crl.O.P(MD).No. 16215 of 2014 13.06.2016