Rajiv Gupta And Another vs Union Territory Of J&K And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1747 j&K

                                                      Sr.No. 21



HIGH   COURT      OF    JAMMU & KASHMIR        AND    LADAKH
                           AT JAMMU


                                          CRM(M) No. 806/2021


Rajiv Gupta and another              ........Petitioner/appellant(s)


               Through:- Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate,
                         Petitioners are present in person


                                V/S

Union territory of J&K and another          ........ Respondent(s)
               Through:- None


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

                         O R D E R

27. 12. 2021

1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners seek quashing of Challan/Charge sheet bearing File No.173126/2021 produced by the Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, in FIR No.30/2017 for commission of offences under Sections 323, 341, 342, 352, 403, 406, 447, 498-A, 506, 34 & 109 I. P. C, pending before the Court of learned Municipal Mobile Magistrate (JMIC), Jammu.

2. It has been stated in the petition that the marriage between petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 was solemnized on 02.07.2017 according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Jammu. Out of their wedlock, no child/ward was born. Both petitioners ever since their marriage did not pull on together being of different ideas, habits, tastes and thoughts and so being completely of different temperaments and nature did not and could never

adjust themselves and there is no chance of reconciliation between them in future. 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 petitioners had filed a joint petition under Section 13 of J&K Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu, for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 with their common consent and mutual understanding, 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 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu.

4. Petitioners have annexed with the petition an affidavit of petitioner No.2 stating therein that she does not want to pursue the criminal Challan titled „Union Territory of J&K Vs. Rajiv Gupta and others‟ u/s 323, 341, 342, 352, 403, 406, 447, 498-A, 506, 34 and 109 IPC against the petitioner No.1 and his family members, pending in the Court of learned Municipal Mobile Magistrate (JMIC), Jammu as both the petitioners have mutually dissolved their marriage u/s 13 HM Act and nothing stands outstanding against each other.

5. The instant petition is supported by an affidavit of the petitioners.

6. Pursuant to the order dated 10.12.2021, the Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of both the petitioners. The same are placed on record, which read as under:-

Statement of Shatakshi Sharma (petitioner No.2), Age: 32 years; W/o Rajiv Gupta, D/o Nagesh Kumar Sharma R/o H. No. 55, Sector-7, Lane No.1, Nanak Nagar, Jammu on oath today i.e 15.12.2021;

Stated that I married to Rajiv Gupta (petitioner no. 1) according to Hindu rites and customs on 02.07.2017 at Jammu. No child was born out of the wedlock. In view of different ideas, habits, thoughts and temperaments, we could not adjust and subsequently, I lodged a complaint in Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. Pursuant to the complaint, FIR No. 30/2021 for offences u/s 323, 341, 342, 352, 403, 406, 447, 498-A, 506, 34 and 109 IPC was registered against petitioner no. 1 and his parents. The said FIR culminated into impugned challan which is pending before the Court of Learned Municipal Mobile Magistrate (JMIC), Jammu. Now the petitioner no. 1 and I have entered into a compromise in the presence of our respective families and, therefore, have jointly filed a petition in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindy Marriage Act for dissolution of our marriage and the same is pending before the court of Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu. In the said petition, our statements and statements of witnesses in the first motion have been recorded under section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. I undertake to return all articles given by petitioner No. 1 and his family to me at the time of marriage, i.e. 1. Mangal Sutra, 2. Engagement Ring and 3. Silver rings (Kalichdi), before the statements under section 13- B(2) (statements in second motion) are made before the Court of Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu. In view of the compromise, I pray before the Hon‟ble Court to quash the Criminal Challan/chargesheet having File No. 173126/2021 titled "Union Territory of J&K v/s Rajiv Gupta and others", pending before the Court of Learned Municipal Mobile Magistrate (JMIC), Jammu and proceedings therein.

Statement of Rajiv Gupta (petitioner No.1), Age:37; S/o Sh. Surinder Gupta R/o H.No. 574, Sector - C, Sainik Colony, Jammu on oath today i.e. 15.12.2021:

Stated that I married to Shataskshi Sharma (petitioner no. 2) according to Hindu rites and customs on 02.07.2017 at Jammu. No child was born out of the wedlock. In view of different ideas, habits, thoughts and temperaments, we could not adjust and subsequently, Shahtakshi Sharma (petitioner no. 2) lodged a complaint in Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. Pursuant to the complaint, FIR no. 30/2021 for offences u/s 323, 341, 342, 352, 403, 406, 447, 498-A, 506, 34 and 109 IPC was registered against me and my parents. The said FIR culminated into impugned challan which is pending before the Court of Learned Municipal Mobile Magistrate (JMIC), Jammu. Now the petitioner no. 2 and I have entered into a compromise in the presence of our respective families and, therefore, have jointly filed a petition in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of our marriage and the same is pending before the court of Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu. In the said petition, our statements and statements of witnesses in the first motion have been recorded under section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. I undertake to return the following articles given by petitioner No. 2 and her family to me at the time of marriage, i.e. Mulkraj Jewelers Gold Jewelry Set with earrings 2. Gold Nose Ring (Nath) 6gm, before the statements under section 13-B (2) (statements in second motion) are made before the Court of Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu. In view of the compromise, I pray before the Hon‟ble Court to quash the Criminal Challan/chargesheet having File No. 173126/20121 titled "Union Territory of J&K v/s Rajiv Gupta and others", pending before the Court of Learned Municipal Mobile Magistrate (JMIC), Jammu and proceedings therein.

7. Bare perusal of the statements of petitioners placed on record demonstrate that the parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their differences.

8. The Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & others Vs State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 while discussing the ambit and scope of inherent powers of High Courts under Section 482 CPC in paras 1, 3, 13, 14, 15 and 16 held as under :

"1.The question that falls for determination in the instant case is about the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings. The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 has been examined by this Court in catena of earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes. The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not only against the husband but his other family members also. When such matters are resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the First Information Report or complaint filed by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are non- compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.

3.The High Court has, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition filed by the appellants seeking quashing of the FIR for in view of the High Court the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC are non-

compoundable and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to bypass the mandatory provision of Section 320 of the Code. For its view, the High Court has referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335]; Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551; and Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. v. State of Orissa [AIR 1999 SC 2181].

11.In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1988) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.

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 counterproductive 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.

16.For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned."

9. In the case titled Aanjana (Smt.) and another Vs State of Rajasthan, reported in RLW 2005(2) Raj 988 while relying upon the judgment of B. S. Joshi & others case (supra) and while discussing the ambit and scope of inherent powers of the High Courts under Sections 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 & 9 held as under:

"6. In B.S. Joshis case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court, the appellants sought quashing of FIR due to settlement of disputes between the husband and wife, who agreed to mutual divorce and the wife supported quashing of the criminal proceedings under Sees. 498-A, 323 and 406 IPC. In that case, the Honble Apex Court held that where there are almost no chance of conviction, it would be improper to decline to exercise power of quashing the proceedings on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. The Apex Court observed that Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 CrPC. The Apex Court further observed that non- exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier and that would be against the object of Section 498A, IPC. The Apex Court further held as under:-

"The object of introducing Chapter XX-A in IPC 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. A hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interests of women and against the object for which this provisions 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. This is not the object of Chapter XX-A of IPC."

7. In Madhavrao Jiwanjirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre : (1988) 1 SCC 692 , the Honble Apex Court held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482 CrPC, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident and it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes.

8. In the instant case, both the petitioners, who are husband and wife, have arrived at a compromise and verifying the factum of compromise. When the parties have arrived at a compromise to drop the criminal proceedings, then there are almost no chances of conviction. Further, in view of the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshis case (supra) and Madhavrao Jiwanjirao Scindias case (supra), for encouraging genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes between the parties, no useful

purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner No. 2.

9. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No. 107/2003 pending against the petitioner No. 2 before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara for the offence under Section 498A, IPC is hereby quashed."

10. The ratio of judgment of B. S. Joshi‟s case (supra) and Aanjana (Smt.)‟ case (supra) make the legal proposition abundantly clear that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice if the parties have settled their disputes amicably by a compromise. The ratios of judgments (supra) are clearly applicable to the case in hand.

11. In the case in hand the parties have arrived at a compromise, so there would be no chance of conviction in near future in case trial is held and concluded.

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

13. Consequently, proceedings in challan arising out of FIR No.30/2017 for commission of offences under Sections 323, 341, 342, 352, 403, 406, 447, 498-A, 506, 34 & 109 I. P. C, of Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, pending before the Court of learned Municipal Mobile Magistrate (JMIC), Jammu to the extent of petitioner no. 1 and his family members are quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.

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

(Mohan Lal Manhas) Judge Jammu:

27.12.2021 Vijay