dgm 1 901-apl-50-14-criminal.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 50 OF 2014
Shri Natrajan Sundaresan …. Petitioner
vs
1 State of Maharashtra,
through Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Criminal Appellate Side,
2 Mrs. Shadi Natarajan …. Respondents
Mr. Gaurav Palkar I/by Mr. Prasad Kulkarni Associates for the
petitioner.
Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Makrand Kale, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,JJ.
DATE : April 18, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):
1 The Petitioner-husband has filed this Petition for quashing
and setting aside FIR bearing No. 282/2012, registered under
Section 498A, 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) with Yerwada
Police Station, Pune in the following background:
1/12
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2017 24/04/2017 23:50:11 :::
dgm 2 901-apl-50-14-criminal.sxw
During December, 1993 the Petitioner (husband) met Mrs.
Shad Natrajan (nee Masrour) (the wife) (Respondent No.2) who is a
Muslim of Iranian origin. They got married in London, U.K. The
marriage was registered at Ealing Registration District in UK. In
1994, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 came back to India after the
marriage. They have a daughter (15 years) and a son (10 years)
from this wedlock.
2 On 5th June, 2012, the Petitioner returned home early and
to his utter shock, dismay and disbelief, he caught the wife and Mr.
Navjeet Sharma committing adultery. On 18 th June, 2012, ironically,
instead of taking any action against the wife and her paramour, the
Police registered the impugned FIR bearing FIR No. 282/12 under
sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of IPC against the Petitioner in Yerwada
Police Station, based on a complaint filed by the wife. On 27 th
August 2012, the learned Sessions Court confirmed the interim
Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner.
3 The parties have ultimately settled the issues. On
16.12.2016, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, have filed a joint
2/12
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2017 24/04/2017 23:50:11 :::
dgm 3 901-apl-50-14-criminal.sxw
Petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special
Marriages Act, 1954 read with Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act,
1969.
4 The Petitioner has filed the present Petition on 13.01.2014.
Affidavit dated 10.03.2017 is also filed by the wife (respondent No.2)
with the specific averments about amicable settlement including the
fact of presenting the joint petition for divorce by mutual consent.
The Petitioner has also placed on record an affidavit dated
17.04.2017.
5 The Petitioner and respondent No.2 both are present in
Court with their counsel and make statement that they have settled
the matter and accordingly filed the joint petition for settlement
before the Family Court and affidavit in this Court for settlement.
Compounding of non-compoundable offences.
6 The offences which are compoundable as contemplated
under Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr PC), there is no
issue with regard to the passing of an appropriate order based upon
3/12
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2017 24/04/2017 23:50:11 :::
dgm 4 901-apl-50-14-criminal.sxw
the settlement between the parties. The offences which are not
compoundable, in the present case like Section 498-A of Indian Penal
Code, are always a matter of discussion. However, we have to see and
consider the facts of the case including the background of litigations,
specifically when the same revolve around the matrimonial dispute
between the parties. The law in this regard is settled by various
decisions. There are various judicial pronouncements by the
Supreme Court as well as High Court in regard to the power of High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or under
Section 482 of Cr PC.
Matrimonial disputes
7 We are concerned in the present case with the matrimonial
dispute and stated offences arising out of the relationship. The
following are the cases where in matrimonial matters, though offences
are non-compoundable, yet in view of the
settlement/compromise/consent decree, the Supreme Court and the
High Courts, have passed the compounding/settlement order by
invoking Articles 142/226 of the Constitution of India read with 482
of Cr. PC and quash and set aside the respective FIR/criminal
proceedings. Some of the judgments of the Supreme Court are as
4/12
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2017 24/04/2017 23:50:11 :::
dgm 5 901-apl-50-14-criminal.sxw
under:
(1) B. S. Joshi and ors v. State of Haryana and anr.1,
This was a case under Section 498-A, 323 and 406 of of
Criminal Procedure Code.
“12 The special features in such matrimonial matters are
evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.”
(2) Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr.2
“61 ….. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount
to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question (s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings.
1 (2003) 4 SCC 675
2 (2012) 10 SCC 303
5/12
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2017 24/04/2017 23:50:11 :::
dgm 6 901-apl-50-14-criminal.sxw
62 In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.
S. Joshi (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC
677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1 were not
correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly.
Let the matters be now listed before the Bench(es)
concerned.”
(3) Jitendra Raghuvanshi vs. Babita Raghuvanshi3
“17 In the light of the above discussion,w e hold that the
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. ….”
This was a case also under Section 498-A, 406 read with
Section 34 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(4) Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand4"4 .....However, when the High Court is convinced that
3 (2013) 4 SCC 58
4 (2014) 9 SCC 6536/12
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017 24/04/2017 23:50:11 :::
dgm 7 901-apl-50-14-criminal.sxwthe offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore,
do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels
that quashing of such proceedings on account of
compromise would bring about peace and would secure
ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In
such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution.
Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time
and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and
obstruct restoration of peace."
(5) Gold Quest International Private Limited v. State of Tamil
Nadu and ors.5
"8 In view of the principle laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid cases, we are of the view that in the disputes
which are substantially matrimonial in nature, or the civil
property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties have
entered into settlement, and it has become clear that there
are no chances of conviction, there is no illegality in
quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr PC read
with Article 226 of the Constitution. ...."
5 (2014) 15 SCC 235
7/12
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017 24/04/2017 23:50:11 :::
dgm 8 901-apl-50-14-criminal.sxwCONCLUSION:
8 It is to be noted that there cannot be automatic
compounding of offences. The parties/victims must forward a
proposal, as prescribed under Section 320 of Cr PC to settle and get
the offences compounded. So far as the non-compounding offences
are concerned, ordinarily the Court has no power to compound it, as it
would amount to passing order beyond the scheme and object of
Section 320 of Cr PC. However, in view of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, Section 482 of Cr PC, in the given facts the High
Court may pass an appropriate order, based upon the consent terms
and settlement, including of setting aside and/or quashing of such
criminal proceedings. The Courts, in above decisions, have also
noted, on given facts, when the contesting parties themselves have
settled the disputes/conflicts and arrived at the settlement and
reflected it in writing, the continuation of such criminal proceedings
would amount to a futile exercise/ordeal. Apart from the prolonged
trial, ultimately, the learned Judge and/or Judges may require to face
various difficulties in passing the final order for and/or against the
same parties, who have settled the matter. In a matrimonial matters,
8/12
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017 24/04/2017 23:50:11 :::
dgm 9 901-apl-50-14-criminal.sxwwherein parties have arrived at settlement, all the consequential
disputes/conflicts need to be settled and concluded at the earliest to
give fruitful result to their settlement/compromise/consent terms.
Any pendency and specifically for and against the same parties and
their relations would certainly hamper and delay the matrimonial
settlements and conflicts. In the present case, Section 498-A is the
main Section, which is non-compoundable. The offences are
registered on the belated afterthought complaint filed by the wife in
the above background and as both the parties have arrived at
settlement, we are inclined to quash and set aside the FIR so lodged
against the husband-Petitioner, to enable the parties to resolve the
matrimonial/conflicts. In matrimonial matters, an
accused/complainant/victim may be accused of many such allegations
or counter allegations, by the other party and/or vice versa.
However, ultimately as wisdom prevailed and and they have decided
to settle the matters, which will lead into peace of minds to whole
family.
9 The concerned parties themselves decided to settle the
dispute and accordingly reflected the same in the consent terms. This
9/12
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017 24/04/2017 23:50:11 :::
dgm 10 901-apl-50-14-criminal.sxwis required to be treated as a foundation for granting the prayer so
sought. Even otherwise, in such matrimonial dispute, once the stated
complaint and/or accused and/or parties, if arrived at particular
settlement, at the time of trial and/or passing appropriate final order,
this settlement ultimately will play a definite and important role. This
may also result into continuation of long drawn trial, but with no
fruitful result as the concerned parties may not even be interested or
cooperate for conclusion of trial.
10 Recently, the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation
vs. Sadhu Ram Singla ors6 refused to interfere with the order of
quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings, as the parties
have even settled the monetary claims in the commercial dispute on
given facts by dealing with Section 320 (9) of Cr PC though the non-
compoundable offences registered under Section 471 read with 468 of
IPC. The Supreme Court in CBI (supra) while concluding in paras 15
and 16 observed as under:
"15 Having carefully considered the singular facts
and circumstances of the present case, and also the law
relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the
complainant and the accused had settled their6 2017 (3) SCALE 166
10/12
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017 24/04/2017 23:50:11 :::
dgm 11 901-apl-50-14-criminal.sxwdifferences and had arrived at an amicable
arrangement, we see no reason to differ with the view
taken in Manoj Sharma's case (supra) and several
decisions of this Court delivered thereafter with respect
to the doctrine of judicial restraint. In concluding
hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the view
recorded in the decisions cited at the Bar that
depending on the attendant facts, continuance of the
criminal proceedings, after a compromise has been
arrived at between the complainant and the accused,
would amount to abuse of process of Court and an
exercise in futility since the trial would be prolonged
and ultimately, it may end in a decision which may be
of no consequence to any of the parties.16 In view of the discussion we made in the
preceding paragraphs, in our opinion, it would be
proper to keep the said point of law open. However,
in the given facts, we dismiss this appeal."11 Therefore, in view of the material and the circumstances
under which, as counter blast, the FIR was filed and the affidavits
placed on record with settlement terms by the parties, we are of the
view, that FIR No.282/2012, registered with Yerwada Police Station,
Pune, is required to be set aside and the proceedings arising out of the
same, if any.
12 In the result, the following order :ORDER
(i) FIR No.282/2012, registered with Yerwada Police
11/12
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017 24/04/2017 23:50:11 :::
dgm 12 901-apl-50-14-criminal.sxwStation, Pune, is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Criminal Application is allowed accordingly.
(iii) No costs
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
12/12
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2017 24/04/2017 23:50:11 :::
