Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Nitu Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 December, 2022
Page 1 of 7
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 886 of 2022
Smt. Nitu Shukla W/o Atul Shukla Aged About 31 Years
Present Address E.W.S. 707, Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, Near
Suparinay Bhawan, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Station House Officer,
Mahila Police Thana, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2. Atul Kumar Shukla, S/o Umesh Shukla, Aged About 37
Years,
3. Umesh Shukla, Aged About 60 Years,
4. Swati Tripathi, W/o Himanshu Tripathi,
5. Prasun Shukla, S/o Umesh Shukla,
Respondent No. 2 to 5 are R/o D. W. 76, Rohit Sewa
Sanstha, Abhishek Nagar, Gorakhpur, District : Gorakhpur,
Uttar Pradesh. ---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2 to 5 : Mr. Nikhil Parakh, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment on Board
19/12/2022
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.
1) The instant petition is preferred under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of entire proceedings pertaining
to Criminal Case No. RCC/7050/2021 (State of Chhattisgarh
v. Atul Shukla and others), pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, arising out of FIR
bearing No.72/2020, registered at Mahila Thana, Durg for
offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the
IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2) The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 - Atul
Kumar Shukla is husband, respondent No.3 - Umesh
Shukla is father-in-law, respondent No. 4 - Swati Tripathi is
sister-in-law and respondent No.5 - Prasun Shukla is
brother-in-law of the petitioner herein. The marriage
between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was
solemnized on 29.01.2019 according to Hundu Rites at
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. After some time, dispute arose
between the petitioner and respondent No.2 to 5 on account
of harassment and assault in connection with demand of
dowry, therefore, complaint was made by the petitioner at
Mahila Thana, Durg and counseling was also conducted
between the parties but it went in vain and thereafter FIR
bearing No. 72/2020 was registered against the private
respondents for offence punishable under Section 498-A
read with 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. The police after due investigation filed
charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Durg and Criminal Case was registered bearing No. RCC
7050 of 2021.
3) During the pendency of the Criminal Case, the petitioner
and the private respondents amicably settled their dispute
and an application under Section 320 (1) and 320 (2) of the
Cr.P.C. was moved by both the parties before the learned
trial Court on 18.10.2022, stating therein that charge-sheet
has been filed and the parties have amicably settled their
dispute and the complainant/petitioner herein does not want
to prosecute furthermore against the respondent Nos. 2 to
5.
4) Learned trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2022 rejected the
application on the ground that the offence punishable under
Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC is not a
compoundable offence.
5) The petitioner has preferred the instant petition against the
order dated 18.10.2022.
6) This Court vide order dated 10.11.2022 directed both the
parties to appear before Additional Registrar (Judicial) for
recording their statements and in pursuance of such order,
the statement of the petitioner - Smt. Nitu Shukla and
respondent No.2 - Atul Kumar Shukla was recorded on
22.11.2022 in presence of the Additional Registrar
(Judicial), where they stated that dispute between them has
been settled amicably and they have moved an application
for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent before the
learned Family Court, Durg. The petitioner has specifically
stated that she does not want to prosecute the private
respondents.
7) Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that there is no existing enmity between them, the
parties have settled their dispute and the petitioner does not
want to continue with the Criminal Case pending against
respondent Nos. 2 to 5. She would further submit that the
petitioner and respondent No.2 have moved an application
for mutual divorce, which is pending before the learned
Family Court, Durg.
8) Mr. Nikhil Parakh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 to 5
would support the submission made by Ms. Anuja Sharma.
He would submit that continuation of the criminal case
before the learned trial Court would be abuse of process of
law.
9) Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that though
the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Cr.P.C.
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not
compoundable but the Supreme Court in catena of the
judgments has allowed such prayer.
10) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
11) The Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab & another1 has laid down the following principles :
"61. The position that emerges from the
above discussion can be summarised thus:
the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct
and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences
under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
with the guideline engrafted in such power
viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
In what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
have settled their dispute would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case
and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the
victim or victim's family and the offender
have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have serious
impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and
offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like Prevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity etc;
cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil
flavour stand on different footing for the
purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the parties
have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, High Court may quash
criminal proceedings if in its view, because
of the compromise between the offender and
victim, the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of criminal case
would put accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal
case despite full and complete settlement
and compromise with the victim. 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
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends
of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case
is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question(s) is in affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceeding.
62. In view of the above, it cannot be said
that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj
Sharma were not correctly decided. We
answer the reference accordingly. Let these
matters be now listed before the Bench(es)
concerned."
12) The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of
Haryana and another2 has held as under:-
"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
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.
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."
13) The Supreme Court referred to various cases and has laid
down that in cases of matrimonial matters, court should
exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sparingly and
only it may exercise when the court is convinced, on the basis
of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to
continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the
2 (2003) 4 SCC 675
ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be
quashed.
14) In the instant case, the petitioner appeared before this Court
and her statement was recorded by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial) on 22.11.2022, where she has clearly stated that
dispute between the parties has been settled amicably and
she does not want to continue with the criminal case. Further,
respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have supported the contention made
by the petitioner and they have also stated before the
Additional Registrar (Judicial) likewise.
15) Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner and
respondent Nos.2 to 5 have settled their dispute amicably and
she does not want to continue with criminal case, it would be
in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings
pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in
Criminal Case No. RCC/7050/2021.
16) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and
criminal proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No. RCC/7050/2021 is
hereby quashed. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 are acquitted of
the charges.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge Judge
Nadim
