cran4260.12
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4260 OF 2012
IN/WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 109 OF 2012
1. Babu s/o Ramjan Laluwale,
Age 33 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Rasala Bazar, Hingoli,
District Hingoli,
2.
Ramjan s/o Jani Laluwale,
Age 60 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. As above
3. Shabanabano w/o Babu Laluwale,
Age 31 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. As above
4. Fatobee w/o Ramjan Laluwale,
Age 55 years, Occ. Household, ...Applicants
R/o. As above (Ori. Accused)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Hingoli Rural,
District Hingoli
(Copy served upon PP of
High Court of Bombay,
at Aurangabad)
2. Malanbee Yusuf Laluwale,
Age 35 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Gawlipura, Washim, (Ori. Complainant)
Tq. and District Washim ...Respondents
.....
Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, advocate for the applicants
Mr. B.J. Sonwane, A.P.P. for respondent No.1
Mr. Girish Rane, advocate for respondent No.2
.....
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:11:41 :::
cran4260.12
-2-
CORAM: SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.
DATED : 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing.
4. The marriage between deceased Yusuf Ramjan Laluwale and respondent No.2 herein viz. Malanbee took place on 14.5.1999.
Applicant No.1 Babu is brother-in-law of respondent No.2 Malanbee, whereas applicant No.2 Ramjan is father-in-law, applicant No.3 Shabanabano is wife of applicant No.1 Babu, and applicant No.4 Fatobee is mother-in-law of said respondent No.2-Malanbee. It is submitted that the husband of respondent No.2 viz. Yusuf expired during pendency of criminal appeal No. 17 of 2008.
5. A complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 Malanbee with Hingoli Rural police station alleging therein the cruelty and harassment caused to her by the present applicants and her deceased husband.
Accordingly, offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 r.w.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:11:41 :::cran4260.12 -3- 34 of I.P.C. was registered against them. Learned J.M.F.C. Court No. 2, Hingoli convicted the applicants herein and deceased husband of respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) r.w.
34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer S.I. for one year and imposed fine of Rs.4000/- only by each of the accused i/d to suffer additional S.I. for two months, by judgment and order dated 10.4.2008 in R.C.C. No. 78 of 2004.
6. The present applicants and deceased husband Yusuf assailed the said conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2008 before the learned Additonal Sessions Judge, Hingoli. However, the said appeal was also dismissed by the learned Adhoc Additonal Sessions Judge, Hingoli by judgment and order dated 21.7.2012, rendered in the said appeal. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said conviction and sentence and confirmation thereof, due to dismissal of the appeal, as aforesaid, the applicants have filed present criminal revision application questioning the correctness and legality thereof. It is submitted that the husband of respondent No.2 viz.
Yusuf s/o Ramjan Laluwale expired during pendency of the said appeal. Therefore, he is not applicant in the present revision application.
7. It further appears that during pendency of present criminal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:11:41 ::: cran4260.12 -4- revision application, an amicable settlement took place between the applicants herein and respondent No.2. Accordingly, respondent No.2 filed an affidavit in reply in the present criminal revision application on 12.9.2012. Accordingly, the applicants herein have preferred separate criminal application No. 4260 of 2012 recording the said compromise between them. It is stated that the alleged incident took place about ten years back and with the passage of time, the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 was amicably settled out of Court.
Therefore, they prayed for compounding the said offence. It is also submitted that respondent No.2 herein is the victim of the incident and she is praying for compounding of the offence and for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Hingoli Court No.2 on 10.4.2008 and which was confirmed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Hingoli on 21.7.2012. Respondent No.2 also submitted that she has received her share in the property of family in terms of money and she is satisfied with the same. It is stated by the parties i.e. the applicants and respondent No.2 that since the dispute is amicably settled between the parties, respondent No.2, who is original complainant, does not wish that the applicants should be punished.
8. According to parties, since the dispute is amicably settled between them out of Court and if the proceedings are permitted to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:11:41 ::: cran4260.12 -5- continue, this will create unnecessary misunderstanding between the parties. Hence, the parties have prayed for compounding of the offence and quashing and setting aside the order of conviction passed against the applicants by the courts below.
9. It is further submitted that the offence is compoundable with leave of the court and hence, applicants and respondent No.2 have moved a joint application for seeking leave of this court for compounding of offence.
10. Learned counsel for the parties relied upon the judicial pronouncement of this Court in the case of Kiran Tulshiram Ingale v.
Anupama P. Gaikwad and others, reported in 2006 B.C.I. 98.
11. Admittedly, the dispute between the parties arose out of matrimonial discord. Moreover, indisputably, the offence under section 498(A) of I.P.C. is not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, if the matrimonial discord is being settled between the parties, this court can always exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction and inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and also secure the ends of justice.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:11:41 :::cran4260.12 -6-
12. However, in this particular case, the applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 498(A) r.w. Section 34 of I.P.C. by the learned trial court and even the appeal preferred by them was dismissed by the learned Adhoc Additonal Sessions Judge-1, Hingoli and thereafter the applicants have preferred present criminal revision application challenging the correctness and legality of the said conviction and confirmation thereof.
ig Hence, the question arises whether it is open for this court to quash the criminal action in exercise of inherent powers, even in the case which has ended into passing of an order of conviction after trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering 7 judgments upon which the parties relied and then after considering its own judgment in the case of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others, reported in 2000 (3) S.C.C. 693 and found that the observations made in that judgment were apt and which were reproduced, are as under:-
"It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly extent which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about re-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:11:41 :::
cran4260.12 -7- approachment are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lost their young days in chasing their cases in different courts.
Then para 14, the Supreme court observed as:-
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".
13. Besides, in para 13, it is observed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Kiran Tulshiram Ingale (supra), which is re-
produced as under:-
"13. Therefore, it is clear that firstly in this case the parties have compromised even after conviction and, the object of compromise to live happily, peacefully though separately after divorce. The Sessions Court has taken cognizance of this compromise and has reduced the conviction and altered it to a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:11:41 ::: cran4260.12 -8- bond under the Probation of Offenders Act. Secondly, conviction by the first Court is not end of the matter and appeal therefrom is continuation of proceeding and if a revision is filed, in case conviction is maintained, altered, reduced, then the High Court in revision does get power to pass effective orders in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Conviction does not attain finality if the appeal is filed and, if the revision is filed against conviction by Appellate Court, there also all issues become opened before the High Court."
The above quoted observations made in the said judgment by the Division Bench of this Court are squarely applicable in the present case. Since the conviction by the trial court is not the end of the matter and appeal therefrom is continuation of proceeding and if a revision is filed, in case conviction is maintained, altered, reduced, then the High Court in revision does get power to pass effective orders in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court. Thus, the conviction does not attain finality if the appeal is filed and, if the revision is filed against conviction by appellate court, there also all issues become opened before the High Court. Accordingly, even criminal proceeding can be quashed irrespective of whether there is conviction or otherwise. Thus the Division Bench answered the issues, as under:-
"The decision of the Supreme court gives powers to the High court to permit compounding of matrimonial offences and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:11:41 ::: cran4260.12 -9- the High court has powers to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. Even in case of conviction, inherent powers can be exercised and criminal proceedings can be quashed."
14. Hence, in the light of the said factual and legal position, the FIR/complaint, filed under section 498(A) r.w. 34 of I.P.C. deserves to be quashed and set aside, by exercising inherent powers in extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to render substantive justice in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.
15. In the result, FIR/complaint under Section 498(A) r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and subsequent conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicants, by the Trial Court, which was confirmed in the appeal by the first appellate court stands quashed and set aside.
16. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
***** ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:11:41 :::