Chattisgarh High Court
Ratnesh Pali vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 600 of 2022
1. Ratnesh Pali S/o Vijay Pali Aged About 32 Years
2. Vijay Pali S/o Lt. B. R. Pali Aged About 76 Years
Both are R/o Bajrang Chowk Mathpara, Police Station
Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station- Mahila Thana, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Chetna Pali W/o Ratnesh Pali Aged About 30 Years Through
Father- Vijay Dhangar, R/o House No. 09, Road No. 03, Sector-
02, Professor Colony, Mahamaya Mandir Ward, Raipur, District-
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For petitioners : Shri Sachin Nidhi, Adv.
For respondent No. 1/State : Shri Himanshu Sharma, PL.
For respondent No. 2 : Shri Anish Tiwari, Adv.
The petitioners and the respondent No. 2 are present in person
before this Court.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order on Board
11-7-2022
1. Heard on IA No.01/2022, application for amendment in the
prayer clause.
2. On due consideration, the application is allowed and the
petitioner is permitted to carryout the amendment during the course
of the day.
3. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard
finally.
4. The petitioners have filed present petition under Section 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in brevity 'Cr.P.C.') praying
for quashing of FIR No. 12/2018 registered in P.S. Mahila Thana,
Distt. Raipur and the subsequent proceedings going on in Criminal
Case 7876/2018 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur
against them.
5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of petitioner
No. 1 was solemnized with the respondent No. 2 on 4-7-2014, and
they have a daughter from their wedlock. After few days of
marriage, the petitioners started harassing the respondent No. 2
physically and mentally saying that she does not know house hold
works. They also used to abuse her and her mother and father also.
They also used to commit maarpeet with her and did not give her
food. Once the petitioner No. 2 also threatened her and her family to
kill by showing her licensed pistol. On 1-3-2018, petitioners
committed maarpeet with her and ousted her from house. The
respondent No. 2 submitted written complaint before the Station
House Officer, Mahila Thana, Raipur on 6-3-2018. Based on the
same, FIR was registered. After investigation, charge sheet for
offence under Section 498-A, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(in brevity 'IPC') was filed by the police of Police Station Mahila
Thana, Distt. Raipur against the petitioners. Learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Raipur framed charge against the petitioners
under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. During the course of trial, victim
- complainant (respondent No. 2) and the petitioners filed
applications to compound the offence, which was rejected as the
offence 498-A/34 is not compoundable. Hence, the petitioners have
filed this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the
parties have settled their dispute amicably, since the offence was
not compoundable, hence they have filed present petition praying
for quashing of the FIR No. 12/2018 registered at PS Mahila
Thana, Distt. Raipur and consequential proceedings going on in
Criminal Case No. 7876/2018 before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Raipur on the strength of settlement arrived at between the
parties. They have also deposed regarding their settlement in their
statement recorded before the Addl. Registrar (Judicial).
7. Pursuant to order dated 8-4-2022 of this Court, statement of
the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 have been recorded by the
Addl. Registrar (Judicial), in which they have stated that the matter
has been settled between them amicably. The respondent No.
2/victim-wife has also deposed that due to settlement arrived at
between them, she does not want to prosecute Criminal Case No.
7876/2018 arising out of Crime No. 12/2018 against the petitioners.
She has also deposed that she has voluntarily made statement
and the same has been executed without fear or pressure.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jitendra
Raghuvanshi and ors. -v- Babita Raghuvanshi and anr.
[(2013) 4 SCC 58] has observed in para 15 and 16 as below
pertaining to settlement in matrimonial cases :-
" 15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to
encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial
disputes, particularly, when the same are on
considerable increase. Even if the offences
are non-compoundable, if they relate to
matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied
that the parties have settled the same
amicably and without any pressure, we hold
that for the purpose of securing ends of
justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be
a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of
FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal
proceedings.
16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. The institution of
marriage occupies an important place and it
has an important role to play in the society.
Therefore, every effort should be made in the
interest of the individuals in order to enable
them to settle down in life and live peacefully.
If the parties ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court
of law, in order to do complete justice in the
matrimonial matters, the courts should be less
hesitant in exercising their extraordinary
jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power
under Section 482 should be exercised
sparingly and with circumspection only 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 ends of justice
require that the proceedings ought to be
quashed. We also make it clear that exercise
of such power would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case and it has to
be exercised in appropriate cases in order to
do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone the courts exist.
It is the duty of the courts to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes
and Section 482 of the Code enables the High
Court and Article 142 of the Constitution
enables this Court to pass such orders.
9. In case of Dimpey Gujral -v- Union Territory and others
[(2013) 11 SCC 497], para 6, 7 and 8 of which are relevant and
reproduced below :-
"6. The question which now remains to be
answered is whether since one of the offences
alleged in the FIR is non-compoundable, the
FIR could be quashed.
7. In certain decisions of this Court in view
of the settlement arrived at by the parties, this
Court quashed the FIRs though some of the
offences were non-compoundable. A two-
Judge Bench [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
[(2012) 10 SCC 303] of this Court doubted the
correctness of those decisions. The learned
Judges felt that in those decisions, this Court
had permitted compounding of non-
compoundable offences. The said issue was,
therefore, referred to a larger Bench. The
larger Bench in Gian Singh (supra)
considered the relevant provisions of the Code
and the judgments of this Court and
concluded as under: (SCC pp. 342-43, para
61) :
"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
FIR may be exercised where the offender and
victim 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 a serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim
and the offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
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, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in
its view, because of the compromise between
the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the
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 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 proceeding."
(emphasis supplied)
8. In the light of the above observations of this
Court in Gian Singh (supra), we feel that this
is a case where the continuation of criminal
proceedings would tantamount to abuse of
process of law because the alleged offences
are not heinous offences showing extreme
depravity nor are they against the society.
They are offences of a personal nature and
burying them would bring about peace and
amity between the two sides. In the
circumstances of the case, FIR No. 163 dated
26-10-2006 registered under Sections 147,
148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 IPC at Police
Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom
including the final report presented under
Section 173 of the Code and charges framed
by the trial court are hereby quashed."
10. In the case of State of M.P. -v- Laxmi Narayan and ors.
[(2019) 5 SCC 688], Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized
the law of quashing of FIR, para 15.1 and 15.5 are relevant here
which read thus :-
"15.1. That the power conferred under Section
482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings for the non-compoundable
offences under Section 320 of the Code can
be exercised having overwhelmingly and
predominantly the civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions
or arising out of matrimonial relationship or
family disputes and when the parties have
resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;
15.5 While exercising the power under
Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings in respect of non-compoundable
offences, which are private in nature and do
not have a serious impact on society, on the
ground that there is a settlement/compromise
between the victim and the offender, the High
Court is required to consider the antecedents
of the accused; the conduct of the accused,
namely, whether the accused was absconding
and why he was absconding, how he had
managed with the complainant to enter into a
compromise, etc."
11. In the instant case, though offence under Section 498-A/34
is non-compoundable, but considering that it is a case of
matrimonial dispute between the parties, the offence can be
quashed with the leave of this Court. The law has been settled by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Srinivas Rao -v- D.A.
Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226 also, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court
has quashed the proceedings in respect of Section 498 of the
IPC on the ground that the husband and wife has mutually
settled the matter.
12. In view of above legal position, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the fact that the parties have amicably
settled their dispute between them and they do not want to
continue with the criminal case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that there is sufficient material before this Court to form
an opinion to quash the proceedings initiated against the
petitioners. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the
continuation of criminal proceeding will be nothing, but to an
abuse of process of law.
13. Consequently, FIR No. 12/2018 registered at PS Mahila
Thana, Distt. Raipur and proceedings in Criminal Case No.
7876/2018 (State of C.G. -v- Ratnesh Pali and anr. ) pending
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, deserve to be
and is hereby quashed.
14. In view of the above, present petition is allowed.
15. No costs.
Sd/-
(NK Chandravanshi)
Judge
Pathak/-
