Bombay High Court Bhushan And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 4 October, 2005Equivalent citations: II (2006) DMC 112 Author: S Kukday Bench: S Kukday
S.P. Kukday, J.
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith with consent of parties. Learned APP waives service for respondent No. 1. Mr. Kutti, learned Counsel waives service for respondent No. 2. Heard both sides.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that respondent No. 2.-Leena married petitioner No. 1-Bhushan s/o Subhash Naphade on 5.2.2005. During that period, she was taking education and was appearing for the examination of 3rd year B.E. (Electronics) at Pune. After the marriage, her husband and other petitioners were demanding forty tolas of gold, Scorpio car, furniture, etc. The demands could not be satisfied by parents of respondent No. 2, therefore, respondent No. 2 was subjected to ill-treatment. When she could no longer endure ill-treatment, respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial house on 17.7.2005 and started living with her parents. She then filed a complaint against the petitioners with City Chowk Police on 11.7.2005, on the basis of which, offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, was registered. The present petition is filed for quashing this F.I.R.
3. During pendency of the petition, there was settlement between the parties. Respondent No. 2 has filed reply today making it clear that there is amicable settlement and she has no objection to quash F.I.R. Both the learned Counsel for the parties submit that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are present in Court today.
4. The offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is not compoundable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the settlement, F.I.R. should be quashed as offence under Section 498A, IPC is not compoundable. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the ruling of Supreme Court, in the matter of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. In this case, in similar circumstances, the Apex Court observed in para No. 14 of the report that: “There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A intheIndian 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 non-exercise 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.” With these observations, the proceedings were quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C This ruling is applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the settlement between the parties and to ensure that the parties are not discouraged from settling the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed.
This is a fit case where F.I.R. should be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties.
5. In the result, the petition is allowed. Hence, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (B).