Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Jain vs Smt. Ritika Jain on 27 February, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5556 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJKUMAR JAIN S/O LATE SHRI PANNALAL JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O GARHA PHATAK
MAHAKALI TEMPLE POLICE STATION
GORDGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ROHIT JAIN S/O SHRI RAJKUMAR JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O GARHA PHATAK
MAHAKALI TEMPLE POLICE STATION
LORDGANJ DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SARITA JAIN D/O SHRI RAJKUMAR JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O GARHA PHATAK
MAHAKALI TEMPLE POLICE STATION
LORDGANJ DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SMT MANJARI JAIN D/O RAHUL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O GARHA PHATAK
MAHAKALI TEMPLE POLICE STATION
LORDGANJ DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAHUL JAIN S/O SHRI RAJKUMAR JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GARHA PHATAK
MAHAKALI TEMPLE POLICE STATION
LORDGANJ DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. RITIKA JAIN W/O ROHIT JAIN D, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DAUGHTER
LATE SHRI SUSHIL JAIN RESIDENT OPPOSITE
JAIN MANDIR KAMANIA GATE JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/28/2023
11:18:14 AM
2
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION MAHILA THANA DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIPUL VARDHAN JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
SHRI J. S. PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2/ STATE)
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed for invoking inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of proceeding of
S.T.No.465/2018 pending before VIII ASJ, Jabalpur for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 377, 34 of IPC read with Section 3 / 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.
2. On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the parties
have filed I.A. No.4026/2023 an application for compromise under Sections
320(2) of Cr.P.C.
3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of respondent no.1 Smt.
Ritika Jain was solemnized with petitioner No.2- Rohit Jain as per Hindu
customs on 10.12.2017.
4. The respondent No.1 lodged an FIR against the petitioners for the offence
punishable under Sections 498A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC read with Section 3, 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. Seeking quashment of proceedings of S.T.
No.465/2018 pending before VIII ASJ, Jabalpur, this petition under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. has been filed. During pendency of this petition, both the parties
filed an application for seeking compromise before the Court below. Vide
order dated 17.1.2023, trial Court partly allowed the application for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/28/2023
11:18:14 AM
compromise with respect to offence under Section 506 of IPC which is
compoundable with the leave of Court, whereas, for rest of the sections it was
rejected as Section 377, 294, 498(A) of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act are not compoundable.
5. The parties have amicably settled their differences by way of mutual
settlement. Pursuant to the same on 17.2.2023, parties were directed to appear
before the Registrar (J-II) for verifying the genuineness and correctness of the
compromise.
6. On 20.2.2023 parties appeared before the Registrar (J-II) who recorded the
statement of petitioner No.2 as well as respondent no.1. Both the parties have
supported the factum of amicable settlement between them. They entered into
compromise without any threat, inducement or pressure with the applicant.
Registrar (J-II) in his report has mentioned that compromise appears to be
genuine and authentic. Parties have been duly identified by their counsel.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the
parties placing reliance on the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs.
Babita Raghuwanshi and another passed in Criminal Appeal
No.447/2013 vide judgment dated 15.03.2013 by the Supreme Court,
Jagdish Channa and others vs. State of Haryana and another -€Â" AIR
2008 SC 1968, Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab - AIR 2008 SC
1969, Shiji vs. Radhika and another - (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder
Singh and others vs. State of Punjab- (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh
vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 have
submitted that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes can be
quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied that the matter has been settled
between the parties amicably.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/28/2023
11:18:14 AM
8. It is not in dispute that on the case in hand, subsequent to filing of criminal
case under Sections 498A, 377, 34 of IPC read with Section 3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and
executed a compromise/settlement and pursuant thereto, filed the said
compromise before this Court with a request to take the same on record and to
drop the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein. It is also not in
dispute that respondent no.1/wife before the Registrar (J-II) has stated that she
has entered into the compromise and did not wish to pursue criminal
proceedings against the petitioners and fully supported the contents of the
compromise application.
9. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as under:-
9. “Learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our
attention to the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi and Others
vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675,
submitted that in an identical circumstance, this Court held
that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial
disputes where the dispute is entirely private and the parties
are willing to settle their disputes amicably. It is not in dispute
that the facts in B.S. Joshi (supra) are identical and the nature
of the offence and the question of law involved are almost
similar to the one in hand. After considering the law laid down
in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
and explaining the decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye vs.
State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Surendra Nath
Mohanty & Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238 and
Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate &
Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, this Court held:
“8. … …. We are, therefore, of the view
that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice,
quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would
not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing.
It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts
and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/28/2023
11:18:14 AM
such a power.†Considering matrimonial matters,
this Court also held:
“12. The special features in such matrimonial
matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to
encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial
disputes.â€Â
10) As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of
a complaint in respect of the offences punishable under
Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant
case, arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant
also has sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the
appellants. That was the position before the trial Court as
well as before the High Court in a petition filed under
Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned order
of the High Court shows that because the mutual
settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non-
compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a wrong
premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the
petition filed under Section 482. A perusal of the petition
before the High Court shows that the application filed by
the appellants was not for compounding of non-
compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing the
criminal proceedings.
11) The inherent powers of the High Court under Section
482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi
(supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court
under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where
dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered
into between the parties who are willing to settle their
differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said
decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the
High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings
by accepting the settlement arrived at.
12) In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly,
when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the
offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to
matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the
parties have settled the same amicably and without any
pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of
justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the
exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the
subsequent criminal proceedings.â€Â
14) In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/28/2023
11:18:14 AM
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the
criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate
cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320
of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code.
In the case of Narinder Singh(supra) Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as under :-
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and
lay down the following principles by which the High Court
would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement
between the parties and exercising its power under Section
482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing
the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.â€Â
In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:-
57. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but
it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of
justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or
complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender
and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case and no category can
be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power,
the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity,
etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have
serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while working
in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/28/2023
11:18:14 AM
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the
purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership
or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature
and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, High Court may quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal case would put accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by
not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete
settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it would be
unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with
the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding.
10. In the light of the aforesaid position of law, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the aim and object of law is not only to punish the culprit, but, the
objective of the law is also to maintain peace, tranquility and harmony in
society. If there is a compromise between husband and wife and they are ready
to compromise in terms of applications for seeking compromise under Section
320(2) of Cr.P.C.. The main objective of which is to settle down in life and live
peacefully. There is a need to encourage matrimonial relations so that the parties
may think over their defaults and settle 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 loose their precious years in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/28/2023
11:18:14 AM
attending their cases in different Courts.
11. Therefore, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra), Gian Singh (supra) and
consistent view of this Court in similar matters, this Court in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allow
the present application and quash the proceedings of S.T. No.465/2018 pending
before the Court of VIII ASJ, Jabalpur under Sections under Sections 377, 294,
498A, 34 of IPC read with Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act , on the
basis of compromise so entered into between the parties.
14. Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/28/2023
11:18:14 AM
