Sri Ram Samad vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1366 Jhar

                                          1                    [Cr.M.P. No. 2485 of 2019]




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Cr.M.P. No. 2485 of 2019

----

Sri Ram Samad, son of Gulam Samad, aged about 35 years, resident of Village Tuiladungri Line No.7 (A) Block, H.No.100, PO-Golmuri, PS-Golmuri, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Alka Minz, wife of Sri Ram Samad, daughter of Angelas Minz, resident of Flat No.3C, Phase-II, Peace Palace, Peace Road, Dangra Toli, PO-Lalpur, PS-Lalpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ...... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. J.J. Sanga, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. V.N. Jha, APP For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate

----

4/17.03.2021 Heard Mr. J.J.Sanga, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.N.Jha, the learned APP for the State and Mr. Bibhash Sinha, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 22.02.2021, the petitioner who happened to be the husband of the opposite party no.2 and O.P.No.2 are present in person before the Court.

3. The petitioner has filed this case for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Lalpur P.S.Case No.376/2017, corresponding to G.R.Case No.6410/2017, registered under sections 498(A) and 495 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The petitioner has earlier moved for anticipatory bail. The matter was sent to the Mediation Centre for mediation between the parties and in the mediation, both the parties have agreed to mutually invoke section 28 of the Special Marriage Act which prescribes for mutual divorce on certain condition and the condition was that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.20 lacs (Twenty Lakhs) and it was also said in the agreement that 50% of that amount will be paid to the O.P.No.2 before the filing of the application under section 28 of the Special Marriage Act. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs and filed application under section 28 of the Special Marriage Act before the

competent court and now it has been submitted at Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the O.P.No.2 that now the divorce has been taken place in light of the decree passed in Original Suit No.424/2019 dated 21.01.2020 which has been brought on record by way of filing the supplementary affidavit. On enquiry from the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 by the Court, they both have admitted that now the divorce has been taken place and now they are living separately. The Opposite Party no.2 has also accepted that she has received a sum of Rs.20 lacs in terms of the mutual settlement between the parties.

5. A reference may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of "K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa", (2013) 5 SCC 226. Paragraph no.44 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

"44. We, therefore, feel that though offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable, in appropriate cases if the parties are willing and if it appears to the criminal court that there exist elements of settlement, it should direct the parties to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation. This is, obviously, not to dilute the rigour, efficacy and purport of Section 498-A IPC, but to locate cases where the matrimonial dispute can be nipped in bud in an equitable manner. The Judges, with their expertise, must ensure that this exercise does not lead to the erring spouse using mediation process to get out of clutches of the law. During mediation, the parties can either decide to part company on mutually agreed terms or they may decide to patch up and stay together. In either case for the settlement to come through, the complaint will have to be quashed. In that event, they can approach the High Court and get the complaint quashed. If, however, they choose not to settle, they can proceed with the complaint. In this exercise, there is no loss to anyone. If there is settlement, the parties will be saved from the trials and tribulations of a criminal case and that will reduce the burden on the courts which will be in the larger public interest. Obviously, the High Court will quash the complaint only if after considering all circumstances it finds the settlement to be equitable and genuine. Such a course, in our opinion, will be beneficial to those who genuinely want to accord a quietus to their matrimonial disputes.

"

6. In view of the above facts and considering the matter that there is public interest in the case in hand, both the parties are mutually agreed to be separated and that has also taken place by way of divorce decree which is on the record. Even assuming that in this matter if the

Court may have interfered, it will be a futile exercise as there is no chance of any conviction. In the light of the present facts, this is a fit case to exercise power under section 482 Cr.PC.

7. Accordingly, Lalpur P.S.Case No.376/2017, corresponding to G.R.Case No.6410/2017, registered under sections 498(A) and 495 of the Indian Penal Code including the entire criminal proceeding are hereby quashed.

8. The instant quashing petition stands allowed and disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

SI/