Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Narayan Prasad Aged ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2227 of 2020
------
Mahendra Narayan Prasad aged about 35 years, son of Deonarayan
Prasad, resident of Village Kathitard, Ratu, P.O. Ratu, P.S. Ratu, District
Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Purnima Devi wife of Mahendra Naryanan Prasad, Resident of Village
Gomia, P.O. + P.S. Gomia, District Bokaro (Jharkhand)
.... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Khanna, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
------
04/09.04.2021 Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Saket Khanna, learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. Rajesh
Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video
Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account
the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the
order dated 29.11.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection
with Ratu P.S. Case No.124 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.3912 of 2018
whereby cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 498A and 323 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act was taken.
The informant-opposite party no.2 filed the case by way of written
complaint before the police stating therein that petitioner and his parents
started torture her and demanded Rupees Fifty thousand. They were not
allowing to meet her daughter. It has been alleged that she was not allowed
to enter into the house and thereafter she lodged the present F.I.R. which
was lodged under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act being Ratu P.S. Case No.124 of 2018
corresponding to G.R. No.3912 of 2018.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the opposite
party no.2 jointly submit that now both the parties have compromised the
matter as the matter was referred before JHALSA. They submit that the
petitioner has preferred F.A. No.114 of 2018 before this Court which was
referred to JHALSA on 19.09.2019. Both the parties agreed to live separately
to each other and present petitioner has paid Rs.5,75,000/- as permanent
alimony to the opposite party no.2. Decree has been directed to prepare by
judgment dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Division Bench. Para 6 of the
judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"6. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and having taken note of the settlement arrived at between
the parties during pendency of this appeal, we do not find any
purpose to enter into adjudication on merits. Mutual terms of the
settlement have been complied on the part of the appellant and
parties have filed joint compromise petition in the learned Court in
Cr.M.P. No.2227 of 2020. As such, the appeal is disposed of in
terms of the settlement. Marriage between the parties is dissolved.
Let a decree be prepared accordingly. Let the terms of the
settlement form part of the decree. I.A. stands disposed of."
It is well settled that in a matrimonial dispute if the parties have
settled the dispute, the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may exercise
its power for quashing of the entire proceeding. Reference in this regard in
the case B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in
(2003) 4 SCC 675. Para 13 to 15 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly
different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for
determining the approach required to be kept in view in a
matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been
an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a
sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the
young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who
could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal
case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned
here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties
may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court
of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that
process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases"
in different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A
containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent
torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.
Section 498-A 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 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 XX-A
of the 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."
In this case decree has already been directed to be prepared by
Division Bench of this Court in F.A. No.114 of 2018. The parties have
compromised have settled the dispute and in the joint compromise petition,
it has been stated that they have settled the dispute. The petitioner has
already paid Rs.5,75,000/- as permanent alimony to the opposite party no.2
in terms of settlement. It is also taken note by Division Bench. There is no
possibility of conviction. This is a fit case to exercise power under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
In that view of the matter, order taking cognizance dated
29.11.2018 and the entire proceeding in connection with Ratu P.S. Case
No.124 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.3912 of 2018 pending in the Court
of Ms. K. Toppo, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is hereby, quashed.
Accordingly, instant criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and
disposed of.
I.A. No.6561 of 2020 is also disposed of.
Let the record of F.A. No.114 of 2018 which has been placed with
the record, be transmitted back to the concerned Section.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Anit
