Bombay High Court Age : Years, Occ : vs Ou on 19 April, 2010Bench: Shrihari P. Davare
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1077 OF 2010 ou
1. Raju S/o Nilaman Ade
Age : 28 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Takli Tanda, Tq.Khultabad, Dist.Aurangabad.
2. Deubai W/o Nilaman Ade
Age : 57 years, Occ : Agri., R/o As above.
3. Kanhiram S/o Nilaman Ade Age : 37 years, Occ : Agri., ig
R/o As above.
4. Sangita W/o Kanhiram Ade H
Age : 25 years, Occ : Agri., R/o As above.
5. Santosh S/o Nilaman Ade y
Age : years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o As above.
6. Sunita W/o Pandit Rathod Age : yars, Occ :
R/o As above.
7. Latabai W/o Santosh Ade Age : years, Occ :
R/o As above.
8. Saidas S/o Rathod B
Age : years, Occ :
R/o As above.
9. Parubai W/o Saidas Ade
Age years, Occ :
R/o As above.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 ::: 2
1. The State of Maharashtra rt
2. Kantabai W/o Raju Ade
Age : years, Occ : Nil,
R/o Takli Tanda, Tq.Khultabad, Dist.Aurangabad.
Mr.Deepak S. Manorkar, Advocate for applicants. Mr.D.V. Tele, APP for respondent no.1. Mr.Abhisek Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.2. …..
(CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) ig DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19th April, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is y
taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. ba
2. This is an application preferred by applicants om
(orig.accused) seeking quashing and setting aside the proceedings of R.C.C. No.368/2009 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad B
arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 registered with Khultabad police station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 ::: 3
3. At the outset, marriage between applicant no.1- Raju Nilaman Ade and complainant Sau.Kantabai Raju Ade ou
was solemnised on 27th April, 2000 and thereafter, complainant Kantabai went to matrimonial home along C
with Raju Ade for cohabitation purpose. However, since the said complainant Kantabai was allegedly subjected h
to cruelty and ill-treatment and also since unlawful ig
demand of money was allegedly made to her by applicants, she filed complaint on 16.02.2008 against H
applicants herein, and accordingly, C.R. No.24/2008 was registered with Khultabad police station under y
sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal ba
Code. Applicant no.1 was arrested on 13.03.2008 and later on he was released on bail and other applicants om
were granted anticipatory bail. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against applicants under sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w B
34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case was numbered as R.C.C. No.368/2009 before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad. Being aggrieved by ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 ::: 4
the said registration of offence and filing of charge sheet bearing R.C.C. No.368/2009, applicants (original rt
accused) have preferred the present application requesting to quash and set aside the said C.R. No. ou
24/2008 and the entire proceedings of R.C.C. No. 368/2009.
4. It is the contentions of applicants that h
registration of above crime at the instance of ig
complainant is result of temperamental differences and implied imputations. It is submitted that all disputes H
between complainant and applicants have been resolved and complainant and applicant no.1-husband both are y
residing happily together since last one year. ba
Applicants also contended that complainant and her parents have no differences with any of applicants and om
all of them are on good terms with each other, and therefore, they wish to give an end to all the court proceedings. It is stated by applicants that B
complainant and applicants intended to compromise the matter in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi & others V/s State of Haryana & anr. reported in 2003 All MR Cri.Pg 1162. It is ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 ::: 5
contended by the applicants that there are no special circumstances suggesting to allow to continue the rt
prosecution. It is also submitted that it is rather more apparent that the ultimate conviction is bleak, ou
and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to C
continue, and hence, it is submitted that it is more in the interest of justice to quash the proceeding, so h
the parties may terminate all their disputes and live ig
happily together instead of fighting with each other in the court of law for rest of their lives. H
5. Original complainant namely Kantabai Raju Ade i.e. y
respondent no.2 herein has filed affidavit in reply ba
and stated that she is wife of applicant no.1 Raju Ade and she is original complainant. She also stated that om
on 16.02.2008, upon her instance C.R. No.24/2008 came to be registered with police station Khultabad against present applicants under Section 498-A, 323, 504 r/w B
34 of the Indian Penal Code. She further stated that registration of the above crime is a result of temperamental differences. The recital in the affidavit in reply is that all the disputes have ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 ::: 6
already been resolved between the complainant and the applicants and both are residing happily together rt
since more than a year at her matrimonial home. Said affidavit in reply further states that respondent no.2 ou
and her parents have no differences with any of the applicants and they are on good terms and they wish to C
give an end to all the court proceedings. She further stated that she wants to compromise matter and there h
are no special circumstances which suggest to allow to ig
continue the prosecution and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal H
prosecution to continue.
6. Learned counsel for the parties relied upon the ba
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors V/s State of Haryana & anr om
reported in 2003(4) LJSOFT (SC) 9. Para 14 of the said judgment reads as under:
” 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 ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 ::: 7
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 rt
would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every ou
likelihood that non-exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the C
object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.”
7. Reliance also can be placed on the Full bench h
Ruling of this Court in the case of Anjusingh ig
Pramodsingh Rajput V/s State of Maharashtra & anr. H
reported in 2009 All MR (Cri) 763, wherein it has been held that powers under Section 482 of the Code y
Criminal Procedure are not limited or affected by the ba
provisions of Section 320 of the Code. It is further held that the inherent powers under section 482 of the om
Code include powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide B
magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 ::: 8
this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. The powers under section 482 are neither limited nor rt
curtailed by any other provisions of the Code including section 320 of the Code. The Court could ou
exercise these powers in offences of any kind, whether compoundable or non-compoundable. However, such C
inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution and in conformity with the precepts indicated h
in paragraph 7.10 of the Judgment. It is further ig
observed that the powers to compound can be exercised at the trial stage or even at the appellate state H
subject to satisfaction of the conditions postulated by the legislature under section 320 of the Code. y
8. The Full Bench in the said judgment further observed that powers of compounding are strictly om
regulated by statutory powers while the inherent powers of the Court are guided by judicial pronouncements within the scope of section 482 of the B
Code. Another very important facet of criminal jurisprudence, as developed in the present times, is with regard to the impact of compounding and/or quashing of criminal proceedings in relation to an ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 ::: 9
offence and its impact on the victim, witnesses and the society at large. This must be treated as a rt
9. In the above referred judgment it is observed by the Full Bench that when the Court has to consider C
whether the criminal proceedings should be allowed to continue or the same should be quashed, two aspects h
are to be satisfied (i) whether the uncontroverted ig
allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish the offence, and (ii) whether it is H
expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.
10. In view of the avernments made in the present application by applicants as well as in view of the om
recitals made by respondent no.2(original complainant) in her affidavit in reply and also relying upon aforesaid judicial pronouncement, there can not be any B
dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure include powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 ::: 10
subordinate to it.
11. In the case at hand R.C.C. No.368/2009 is pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, ou
Khultabad arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 registered with Khultabad Police station for the offences C
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of the h
Dowry Prohibition Act, on the complaint lodged by ig
respondent no.2 herein. However, respondent no.2 i.e. original complainant has filed affidavit in reply as H
aforesaid and stated that she and her husband i.e. applicant no.1 have compromised the matter and they y
are residing together happily since more than one ba
year. The said affidavit in reply also recites that all the disputes between her and applicants have been om
resolved and now there are no differences between complainant and applicants herein and they are on good terms and she wish to give an end to all the court B
proceedings. She further stated that there are no special circumstances which suggest to allow to continue the prosecution and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:39 ::: 11
prosecution to continue.
12. Applicant no.1-Raju Nilaman Ade as well as complainant Kantabai Raju Ade are present today in the ou
Court and both of them admitted that compromise took place between them and they have been residing C
together since last one year happily. The complainant Kantabai Raju Ade has categorically stated that she h
does not wish to prosecute R.C.C. No.368/2009 pending ig
before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 registered H
with Khultabad Police station furthermore, and requested to quash and set aside the said proceedings. y
13. In the circumstances, the complainant Kantabai Raju Ade has no grievance against applicants herein, om
and therefore, the exercise of continuation of prosecution in R.C.C. No.368/2009 would be futile, and therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice B
not to permit said prosecution to continue. Hence, this is a fit case to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the proceedings of R.C.C No.368/2009 pending ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:40 ::: 12
before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 registered rt
with Khultabad police station to meet the ends of justice.
14. In the result, proceedings of R.C.C. No.368/2009 C
pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 h
registered with Khultabad police station for the ig
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 H
of the Dowry Prohibition Act stand quashed and set aside and present criminal application stands disposed y
of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid ba
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:51:40 :::