Bombay High Court Jai Mahendra Thakor And Ors.-vs-Aarti Dinesh Jain And Anr. on 13 July, 2006
Equivalent citations:II (2006) DMC 731
Author: D Bhosale
Bench: D Bhosale
D.B. Bhosale, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 294 of 2001 registered at Bhoiwada Police Station, Dadar under Sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC as also the case arising from the said Cr bearing No. 156/PW of 2004 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Bhoiwada, Dadar, Mumbai. Petitioner No. 1-husband and respondent No. 1-wife are present in Court. The respondent-wife has filed an affidavit dated 9.6.2006 stating that she has ended all her disputes with the petitioners and they have decided to take divorce by mutual consent. In fact, the divorce by mutual consent has already been obtained. I perused the Consent Terms annexed to the petition (Exhibit-I). The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. , in similar situation in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment held thus:
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 counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added, there is every likelihood that non-exercise to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A 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 of FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
3. Keeping these observations in view and considering the affidavit of the respondent-wife stating that the parties have amicably sorted out all the differences and settled the dispute I find no reason and ground to reject the prayer made by the petitioners and respondent No. 1 in particular. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings in Case No. 156/PW of 2004 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Bhoiwada, Dadar, Mumbai are quashed. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.