SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Raju S/O Nilaman Ade-vs-The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010

Bombay High Court Raju S/O Nilaman Ade-vs-The State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 2010
Bench: Shrihari P. Davare

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1077 OF 2010

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.,

R/o As above.

4. Sangita W/o Kanhiram Ade

Age : 25 years, Occ : Agri.,

R/o As above.

5. Santosh S/o Nilaman Ade

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

Age : years, Occ :

R/o As above.

9. Parubai W/o Saidas Ade

Age years, Occ :

R/o As above.

..Applicants

2

V/s

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. Kantabai W/o Raju Ade

Age : years, Occ : Nil,

R/o Takli Tanda, Tq.Khultabad,

Dist.Aurangabad.

..Respondents

…..

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.)

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 taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. This is an application preferred by applicants (orig.accused) seeking quashing and setting aside the proceedings of R.C.C. No.368/2009 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad 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 3

Prohibition Act.

3. At the outset, marriage between applicant no.1- Raju Nilaman Ade and complainant Sau.Kantabai Raju Ade was solemnised on 27th April, 2000 and thereafter, complainant Kantabai went to matrimonial home along with Raju Ade for cohabitation purpose. However, since the said complainant Kantabai was allegedly subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment and also since unlawful demand of money was allegedly made to her by applicants, she filed complaint on 16.02.2008 against applicants herein, and accordingly, C.R. No.24/2008 was registered with Khultabad police station under sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant no.1 was arrested on 13.03.2008 and later on he was released on bail and other applicants 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 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 4

the said registration of offence and filing of charge sheet bearing R.C.C. No.368/2009, applicants (original accused) have preferred the present application requesting to quash and set aside the said C.R. No. 24/2008 and the entire proceedings of R.C.C. No. 368/2009.

4. It is the contentions of applicants that registration of above crime at the instance of complainant is result of temperamental differences and implied imputations. It is submitted that all disputes between complainant and applicants have been resolved and complainant and applicant no.1-husband both are residing happily together since last one year. Applicants also contended that complainant and her parents have no differences with any of applicants and 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 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 5

contended by the applicants that there are no special circumstances suggesting to allow to continue the prosecution. It is also submitted that it is rather more apparent that the ultimate conviction is bleak, and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue, and hence, it is submitted that it is more in the interest of justice to quash the proceeding, so the parties may terminate all their disputes and live happily together instead of fighting with each other in the court of law for rest of their lives.

5. Original complainant namely Kantabai Raju Ade i.e. respondent no.2 herein has filed affidavit in reply and stated that she is wife of applicant no.1 Raju Ade and she is original complainant. She also stated that 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 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 6

already been resolved between the complainant and the applicants and both are residing happily together since more than a year at her matrimonial home. Said affidavit in reply further states that respondent no.2 and her parents have no differences with any of the applicants and they are on good terms and they wish to give an end to all the court proceedings. She further stated that she wants to compromise matter and 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 prosecution to continue.

6. Learned counsel for the parties relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors V/s State of Haryana & anr 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 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 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 powers 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.”

7. Reliance also can be placed on the Full bench Ruling of this Court in the case of Anjusingh Pramodsingh Rajput V/s State of Maharashtra & anr. reported in 2009 All MR (Cri) 763, wherein it has been held that powers under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure are not limited or affected by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code. It is further held that the inherent powers under section 482 of the 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 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 8

this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. The powers under section 482 are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code including section 320 of the Code. The Court could exercise these powers in offences of any kind, whether compoundable or non-compoundable. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution and in conformity with the precepts indicated in paragraph 7.10 of the Judgment. It is further observed that the powers to compound can be exercised at the trial stage or even at the appellate state subject to satisfaction of the conditions postulated by the legislature under section 320 of the Code.

8. The Full Bench in the said judgment further observed that powers of compounding are strictly regulated by statutory powers while the inherent powers of the Court are guided by judicial pronouncements within the scope of section 482 of the 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 9

offence and its impact on the victim, witnesses and the society at large. This must be treated as a relevant consideration.

9. In the above referred judgment it is observed by the Full Bench that when the Court has to consider whether the criminal proceedings should be allowed to continue or the same should be quashed, two aspects are to be satisfied (i) whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish the offence, and (ii) whether it is 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 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 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 10

subordinate to it.

11. In the case at hand R.C.C. No.368/2009 is pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 registered with Khultabad Police station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the complaint lodged by respondent no.2 herein. However, respondent no.2 i.e. original complainant has filed affidavit in reply as aforesaid and stated that she and her husband i.e. applicant no.1 have compromised the matter and they are residing together happily since more than one year. The said affidavit in reply also recites that all the disputes between her and applicants have been 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 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 11

prosecution to continue.

12. Applicant no.1-Raju Nilaman Ade as well as complainant Kantabai Raju Ade are present today in the Court and both of them admitted that compromise took place between them and they have been residing together since last one year happily. The complainant Kantabai Raju Ade has categorically stated that she does not wish to prosecute R.C.C. No.368/2009 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 registered with Khultabad Police station furthermore, and requested to quash and set aside the said proceedings.

13. In the circumstances, the complainant Kantabai Raju Ade has no grievance against applicants herein, 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 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 12

before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 registered with Khultabad police station to meet the ends of justice.

14. In the result, proceedings of R.C.C. No.368/2009 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khultabad arising out of C.R. No.24/2008 registered with Khultabad police station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act stand quashed and set aside and present criminal application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE)

JUDGE

gas/cri1077.10

Main – Page

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation