Madras High Court Jenefa Paul-vs-State By on 26 March, 2009
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI
Crl.O.P. No.4666 of 2009
1. Jenefa Paul
2. Paul Ebenezer George
3. Kamala George
4. Oliver Davis George … Petitioners
The Inspector of Police,
W-8, All Women Police Station,
Chennai 600 101. … Respondent
Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C. No.15078 of 2008 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8. For Petitioner : Mr.P.N.Prakash
For respondent : Mr.A.Saravanan,
O R D E R
The first petitioner herein is the defacto complainant, 2nd petitioner is her husband and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are mother and brother respectively of petitioner No.2. The first petitioner married the 2nd petitioner 27.01.1997 and from the wedlock, they got two children. Alleging dowry harassment, the first petitioner lodged a complaint as against petitioner Nos.2 and 4 and the same was taken on file by the respondent police as Crime No.1 of 2008 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On conclusion of the investigation, final report came to be filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, and the case was taken on file as C.C. No.15078 of 2008. Now, the present petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the aforesaid proceedings pending before the trial court on the ground that both parties arrived at a compromise to peacefully join the matrimonial home.
2. A separate memo of compromise, dated 16th February, 2009, signed by the husband and wife, has been filed along with the petition, and it is stated therein that compromise has been effected between both the parties; that the first petitioner has joined the matrimonial home with the 2nd petitioner subsequent to mediation and conciliation; and that it has also been decided to withdraw the civil and criminal cases pending before other forums.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the penal provisions registered against the accused/petitioners pertain to non-compoundable offences and in view of the facts and circumstances involved and of the reason that the first petitioner/defacto complainant is not interested in further pursuing the matter, it is but proper that the proceedings pending before the trial court in C.C. No.15078 of 2008 may be quashed.
4. I have heard the learned Government Advocate with reference to the submission made on behalf of the petitioners.
5. It is of much relevance to refer to the case law reported in 2003 (3) CTC 54 (Joshi, B.S. v. State of Haryana), wherein, with reference to the power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR in like cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus:- " 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A 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 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 or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. " In the case on hand, the defacto complainant/wife and the accused/husband together, after concurrence, have filed the petition and a joint memo of compromise, duly signed by the parties and witnesses, has also been filed therewith. The parties were present before this Court and on enquiry, the defacto complainant stated that she is willing to withdraw the complaint and further, she has already joined her husband along with the children. She expressed her desire that the case taken on file by the trial court subsequent to the complaint preferred by her need not be prosecuted further since it would affect her harmonious matrimonial life with her husband and the interest and future of the children. I am of the considered view that the prayer of the petitioner deserves acceptance in view of the facts and circumstances involved in the case. Accordingly, the proceedings pending against petitioner Nos. 2 to 4/accused in C.C. No.15078 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, are hereby quashed. Petition is ordered accordingly. 30.03.2009.
Index : yes / no.
Internet : yes / no.
1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
2. The Inspector of Police,
W-8, All Women Police Station,
Thirumangalam, Chennai 600 101.
Crl.O.P. No.4666 of 2009.