Chattisgarh High Court
Chamman Lal Pal vs Smt. Kiran Pal on 19 June, 2024
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:21166
CrMP No. 1833 of 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CrMP No. 1833 of 2023
• Chamman Lal Pal S/o Shri Parmanand Pal Aged About 42 Years R/o
Gram Pateva, Police Station Gobranavapara, Tehsil Abhanpur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Kiran Pal W/o Chamman Pal Aged About 37 Years R/o Shri
Ramgopal Dhangar, Gram Aamner, Post Chandi Bazaar, Tehsil Abhanpur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Tehsil and District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
19/06/2024
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the present applicant challenging
the order dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the 10th
Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the learned Court
rejected the revision petition under Section 397 read with 398 of the
CrPC, 1973 which was registered as Criminal Revision No.155 of
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:21166
2023 titled as "Chamman Lal Pal Vs. Kiran Pal and another" and the
order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P/2) passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class in the Complaint Case No.300/2019
whereby which the Court below has framed charge under Sections
494 and 495 of the IPC, 1860.
2. Brief facts of this case is that the applicant and respondent No.1
got married to each other on 30.01.2008 as per Hindu rites and
customs as Gam Amner, Police Station- Abhanpur, District
Raipur (C.G.) and out of the lawful wedlock, two children were
born. It is specifically stated that the applicant and the
respondent No.1 are of different castes due to which the
applicant faced many hardships just like boycotting him from the
society because of which he was forced to place the respondent
No.1 separately at another place with his family other than the
matrimonial home and thereafter due to some reasons,
relationship between the applicant and respondent No.1 became
sour because of which she went back to her parental home and
later on, she left her matrimonial home with all her belongings in
the heat of the moment. Respondent No.1/wife filed an
application under Section 125 of the CrPC for grant of
maintenance and thereafter, since no amicable settlement could
be made out between the parties, therefore, the applicant filed
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:21166
an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act against respondent No.1. Thereafter, respondent
No.1 filed a complaint case before the JMFC, Raipur under
Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC against the applicant which
was registered as Complaint Case No.300/2019. Thereafter, the
applicant preferred a Revision Petition under Section 397 read
with Section 398 of CrPC which was registered as Criminal
Revision No.155/2023 against framing of charge against the
applicant before the District and Sessions Court, Raipur (C.G.)
which was registered by the Court below.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the
dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and filed
the copy of compromise deed, Kisan Kitab, Khasra Detail
(Online), Form B-1 and statement of Bank account. On the basis
of that the terms and conditions of the settlement deed has been
fulfilled. He further contended that in compliance of Court order
dated 28.02.2024, petitioner and respondent No.1 appeared
before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on
14.03.2024 where their statement was recorded.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contended that
the parties are amicably settled their dispute but after recording
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:21166
of statement, the respondent/wife has informed that minor son of
the parties wants to live with his father and as per settlement,
both the child would remain with respondent, i.e., their mother.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the material available on record with utmost
circumspection.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
submission made by learned counsel for the parties. On perusal
of the records, I have found that parties are fulfilled all the terms
and conditions of the settlement deed. In view of the categorical
statements made by respondent No.1/Smt. Kiran Pal, this Court
is of the opinion that once when the complainant and the
petitioner have settled their matter, it would be an important
consideration for the High Court, while exercising the powers
under Section 482 of CrPC to compound the offence.
7. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State
of Punjab & Another [2012 (10) SCC 303] and also in the case
of Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Mumbai Vs.
Narendra Lal Jain & Others [2014 (5) SCC 364].
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:21166
8. Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that since the
parties to the dispute having entered into a settlement and
compromised the matter and also filed application under Section
13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court.
During the course of argument, learned counsels for the
respective parties have contended that the decree of dissolution
of marriage has already been passed by the Family Court,
therefore, there is a minimal chance of the complainant coming
forward in support of the prosecution case and the chances of
conviction, therefore, appeared to be very remote and it would
not be justified to drag these proceedings unnecessarily knowing
fully well the final outcome.
9. In view of the statement made the the Complainant- Smt. Kiran
Pal and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana
& Another [2003 (4) SCC 675] and in the case of Gian Singh
(supra) and Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Mumbai
(supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the
parties can be permitted to compound the offence and they are
permitted to do so.
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:21166
10. Consequently, the criminal proceedings against the present
petitioner in Complaint Case No.300/2019 pending before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur stands quashed and the
petitioner is discharged of the charge under Sections 494 and
495 of the IPC, 1860.
11. The present CrMP thus stands allowed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant
