Ajeet Raj Age 30 Years vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir
2021 Latest Caselaw 1728 j&K

                                                           Sr.No. 118



 HIGH      COURT    OF   JAMMU & KASHMIR          AND      LADAKH
                            AT JAMMU

                                              CRM(M) No. 450/2019

    1.   Ajeet Raj age 30 years S/O Darshan Lal;
    2.   Pardeep Raj (Age 28 yrs) S/O Darshan Lal;
    3.   Darshan Lal (Age 59 yrs) S/O Girdhari Lal
    4.   Kamala Devi (Age 50 yrs) W/O Darshan Lal,
         All R/O H. No. 24, Lane No. 1 Digiana Ashram        Tehsil &
         District Jammu ........Petitioner/appellant(s)
         Through:- Mr. Rajiv K Sharma, Advocate,
                    Petitioner No.1 is present in person



                                   V/S

    1. State of Jammu & Kashmir, through Incharge Women Cell
       Gandhi Nagar jammu;
    2. Krishana Kumari D/O Mangal Dass R/O Chak Bakhtawar Tehsil
       & District Jammu ........ Respondent(s)
       Through:- Respondent No.2 present in person

         CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL MANHAS, JUDGE

                            O R D E R

23. 12. 2021

1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A

Cr.P.C., petitioners seek quashing of Challan bearing No.18/Challan

dated 03.05.2017 produced by the Police Station Women Cell,

Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, in FIR No.08/2017 dated 21.02.2017 under

Section 498-A/109 RPC, pending before the Court of learned 3rd

Additional Munsiff, Jammu.

2. It has been stated in the petition that the marriage between

petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 14.10.2015

according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Village Chak-Bakhtawar,

Tehsil R. S. Pura, Jammu. Out of their wedlock one male issue was

born. Both petitioner No1 and respondent No.2 are living

separately from each other since 2016 due to differences

between them. It is also stated that civil as well as criminal cases

filed by them against each other are pending between the parties

in different courts at Jammu.

3. It has further been stated that both petitioner No. 1 and

respondent No.2 had filed a joint petition under Section 15 of J&K

Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of learned Additional District

Judge (Matrimonial Court) Jammu, for a decree of divorce by

mutual consent, where they had also furnished their statements

by way of affidavits to the effect that they shall withdraw all the

cases filed by them against each other from all the Courts and

make statements before the Courts for the disposal of the cases

as compromised. The said petition filed under Section 15 came to

be disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge vide order

dated 24.04.2019 whereby the marriage between the petitioner

No.1 and respondent No.2 was dissolved with mutual consent.

4. Petitioner has annexed with the petition an affidavit of

respondent No.2 stating therein that she does not want to pursue

the criminal Challan titled State Vs. Ajeet Raj and others u/s 498-

A, 109 RPC against the petitioners, pending in the Court of 3rd

Additional Munsiff, Jammu as she and petitioner No.1 have

mutually dissolved their marriage u/s 15 HM Act and nothing

stands outstanding against each other.

5. Instant petition is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner

No.1.

6. Pursuant to the order dated 22.12.2021, the Registrar Judicial has

recorded the statements of the petitioner No. 1 and respondent

No.2. The same are placed on record, which read as under:-

Statement of Ajeet Raj (petitioner No.1), Age: 33 years; S/o

Sh. Darshan Lal, R/o H.No.24, Lane No.1, Digiana Ashram,

Jammu, on oath today i.e. 22.12.2021

Stated that I married to Krishana Kumari (respondent No.2) according to Hindu rites and customs on 14.10.2015 at Village Chak-Bakhtawar, Tehsil R. S. Pura, District Jammu. A male issue was born on 07.07.2016 out of our wedlock who is presently living with respondent No.2. In view of the different ideas, habits, thoughts and temperaments, we could not adjust. Since 2016, we are living separately at our respective houses. Subsequently, Krishana Kumari lodged a complaint against me and my family members before Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu which came to be registered as FIR No. 08/2017 dated 21.02.2017 under Section 498-A and 109 RPC. The challan bearing no. 18/Challan dated 03.05.2017 in the said FIR is pending before the court of 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu. Now, I have entered into a compromise, vide compromise deed executed on 20.12.2021, with respondent No.2. In terms of the aforesaid compromise deed we have settled all our disputes and have further agreed not to intere into the life of each other. In view of the compromise, I pray before the Hon'ble Court to quash the Criminal Challan no. 18/Challan dated 03.05.2017 produced by the Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu in Fir No. 08/2017 dated 21.02.2017 under Section 498-A and 109 RPC pending before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu.

Statement of Krishana Kumari (respondent No.2), Age:32; D/o

Mangal Dass R/o Village Chack Bakhtawar, Tehsil and District

Jammu on oath today i.e. 22.12.2021

Stated that I married to Ajeet Raj (petitioner no.1) according to Hindu rites and customs on 14.10.2015 at Village Chak-Bakhtawar, Tehsil R. S. Pura, District Jammu.

A male issue was born on 07.07.2016 out of our wedlock who is presently living with me. In view of the different ideas, habits, thoughts and temperaments, we could not adjust. Since 2016, we are living separately at our respective houses. Subsequently, I lodged a complaint against Ajeet Raj (petitioner No.1) and his family members (petitioner nos. 2 to 4) before Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu which came to be registered as FIR No. 08/2017 dated 21.02.2017 under Section 498-A and 109 RPC. The challan bearing no. 18/Challan dated 03.05.2017 in the said FIR is pending before the court of 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu. Now, I have entered into a compromise, vide compromise deed executed on 20.12.2021, with Ajeet Raj (petitioner No.1) and other petitioners (family members of Ajeet Raj). In terms of the aforesaid compromise deed I have settled all my disputes with petitioner no.1 and his family members. We have further agreed not to interfere into the life of each other. In view of the compromise, I have no objection in case the Hon'ble Court quashes the Criminal Challan no. 18/Challan dated 03.05.2017 produced by the Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu in FIR No. 08/2017 dated 21.02.2017 under Section 498-A and 109 RPC pending before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu.

7. Bare perusal of the statements placed on record, it is evident that

parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled

their differences.

8. In case titled Ram Singh & anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

reported in 11 (2005) DMC 412, it is held as under :

"6. I have given my anxious consideration to the above arguments and have gone through the case laws cited at the Bar. It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction the Court should encourage genuine settlements of the cases arising out of matrimonial disputes. While considering the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court

in V.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana, , have observed 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 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 hypertechnical view would be counter-productive and would act against interest 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 XX-A of the Indian Penal Code."

7. The present case also arises out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Undisputedly the parties have entered into a written compromise and are living peacefully. However, the question that still emerges for consideration of this Court is whether after conviction having been recorded, the offence can be ordered to be compounded and/or the criminal proceedings pending in the Appellate Court can be ordered to be dropped?

8. In O.P. Dholikia's case (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with a case arising out of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, considered the question as to what is the proper stage for compounding the offence. Their Lordships found force with the argument of the Counsel for the stage that conviction and sentence having been upheld by all the three Forums, the Apex Court need not interfere with the same as it was open for the parties to enter into a compromise at an earlier stage when the appeal was pending. However, taking into consideration the nature of offence in question and the fact that complainant and the accused had already entered into a compromise, Their Lordships thought it appropriate to grant permission, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case to compound and accordingly annulled the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act.

9. In Govinda's case (supra) the accused were convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. and appeal against conviction was pending before the Appellate Court. During pendency of appeal, the parties entered into a compromise and ultimately invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. This Court refused to invoke inherent jurisdiction for assuming direction to compound the offence under Section 489A, I.P.C. But considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in series of decisions referred to in the judgment, this Court ordered for quashing the proceedings in appeal holding that continuance of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law and would not be in the interest of justice.

10. Evidently thus, the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Govind and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (supra). Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as stated hereinabove, the continuance of proceedings in appeal pending before the Appellate Court, in my considered view would not be in the interest of justice and keeping the proceedings pending would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

11. In the result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 28/2003 Ram Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, filed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2003, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg, District Bharatpur are quashed. Necessarily the conviction and sentence under Section 498A, I.P.C. under the judgment and order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the Trial Court stands annulled.

9. In case titled Central Bureau of Investigation vs Sadhu Ram

Singla & ors reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 1312. It is apt to

reproduce paragraphs 8 to 16 as under:

"8. We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the CBI and learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents at length and carefully examined the materials placed on record.

We have also taken notice of the fact that the counsel for the appellant in High Court had sought time for filing the reply but no reply was filed. We have also taken notice of the fact that the High

Court while quashing the said FIR and consequential proceedings, has relied on the Full Bench judgment of that High Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2007 (4) CTC 769, in which reliance was placed on the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney & Ors., (1980) 1 SCC 63.

9. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the CBI has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 1, wherein it was observed by this Court:

"22. Since Section 320 CrPC has clearly stated which offences are compoundable and which are not, the High Court or even this Court would not ordinarily be justified in doing something indirectly which could not be done directly. Even otherwise, it ordinarily would not be a legitimate exercise of judicial power under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 CrPC to direct doing something which CrPC has expressly prohibited. Section 320(9) CrPC expressly states that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by that Section. Hence, in my opinion, it would ordinarily not be a legitimate exercise of judicial power to direct compounding of a non-compoundable offence."

10. We further wish to supply emphasis on the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R. Vasanthi Stanley & Anr., (2016) 1 SCC 376, wherein it was observed:

"15. As far as the load on the criminal justice dispensation system is concerned it has an insegregable nexus with speedy trial. A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has been settled it should be quashed to avoid the load on the system. That can never be an acceptable principle orparameter, for that would amount to

destroying the stem cells of law and order in many a realm and further strengthen the marrows of the unscrupulous litigations. Such a situation should never be conceived of."

11. Further reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 351, wherein it was held:

"39. Careful analysis of all these judgments clearly reveals that the exercise of inherent powers would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The object of incorporating inherent powers in the Code is to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice."

12. Lastly, reliance was placed upon another judgment of this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389, wherein it was held by this Court:

"19. In this case, the High Court while exercising its inherent power ignored all the facts viz. the impact of the offence, the use of the State machinery to keep the matter pending for so many years coupled with the fraudulent conduct of the respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand in the light of the decision in Vikram Anantrai Doshi case, (2014) 15 SCC 29, the order of the High Court cannot be sustained."

13. Resisting the aforesaid submissions it was canvassed by Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents that High Court has judiciously and rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the present case. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously urged that the offences in the present case are not heinous offences. He further drew our attention towards the relevant part of Full Bench judgment of the High Court in Kulwinder Singh &

Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), which was reproduced in the impugned judgment and the same is reproduced hereunder:

"26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney & Ors.,(1980) 1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summed up the essence of compromise in the following words :- The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion. 27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything; except to thecaution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C."

14. Since the present case pertains to the crucial doctrine of judicial restraint, we are of the considered opinion that encroaching into the right of the other organ of the government would tantamount clear violation of the rule of law which is one of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. We wish to supply emphasis on para 21 of the Manoj Sharma's case (supra) which is as follows:

"21. Ordinarily, we would have agreed with Mr. B.B. Singh. The doctrine of judicial restraint which has been emphasised repeatedly by this Court e.g. in Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC 683 and Govt. of A.P. v. P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720, restricts the power of the Court and does not permit the Court to ordinarily encroach into the legislative or executive domain. As observed by this Court in the above decisions, there is a broad separation

of powers in the Constitution and it would not be proper for one organ of the State to encroach into the domain of another organ."

15. Having carefully considered the singular facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, we see no reason to differ with the view taken in Manoj Sharma's case (supra) and several decisions of this Court delivered thereafter with respect to the doctrine of judicial restraint. In concluding hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the view recorded in the decisions cited at the Bar that depending on the attendant facts, continuance of the criminal proceedings, after a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would amount to abuse of process of Court and an exercise in futility since the trial would be prolonged and ultimately, it may end in a decision which may be of no consequence to any of the parties."

10. Further, as the parties in the case in hand have arrived at a

compromise, so there would be no chance of conviction in near

future in case trial is held and concluded.

11. In view of the above, this petition stands allowed.

12. Consequently, proceedings in challan arising out of FIR No.08/2017

u/s 498-A/109 RPC of Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar,

Jammu pending disposal before the Court of learned 3rd Additional

Munsiff, Jammu, to the extent of petitioners only are quashed in

view of compromise arrived at between the parties.

13. Copy of this order be sent to Court below for compliance.

   Jammu:                                         (Mohan Lal Manhas)
    23-12-2021                                         Judge
    Vijay