Swati Parashar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8065 MP

                             1
 IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                   ON THE 18 th OF MAY, 2023
             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 371 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
SWATI PARASHAR W/O SHRI MOHIT KAUSHIK, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O VISHAL NAGAR, NEAR RAJIV
GANDHI STADIUM ROTHAK, HARYANA (HARYANA)

                                                      .....APPLICANT
( SHRI GIRISH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      POLICE STATION NASRULLAGANJ SIHORE
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SHRI MOHIT KAUSHIK S/O SHRI HAWASINGH
      KAUSHIK, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O NEW
      VISHAL NAGAR NEAR RAJIV GANDHI STADIUM
      ROHTAK HARYANA 124001 (HARYANA)

3.    SHRI HAWASINGH KAUSHIK S/O MANGERAM
      KAUSHIK, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O NEW
      VISHAL NAGAR NEAR RAJIV GANDHI STADIUM
      ROHTAK HARYANA 124001 (HARYANA)

4.    SMT. RAJAN DEVI KAUSHIK W/O HAWASINGH
      KAUSHIK, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O NEW
      VISHAL NAGAR NEAR RAJIV GANDHI STADIUM
      ROHTAK HARYANA 124001 (HARYANA)

5.    SMT. VANDANA KAUSHIK D/O HAWASINGH
      KAUSHIK, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O NEW
      VISHAL NAGAR NEAR RAJIV GANDHI STADIUM
      ROHTAK HARYANA 124001 (HARYANA)

                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI S K RAI - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/ STATE.
NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5)
                                     2
       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 F.I.R. No.0355 dated 26.5.2022 registered at Police Station Nasrullahganj, District Sehore by the petitioner herself for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC read with Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents.

2. On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the parties

have filed I.A. No.3122/2023 an application for compromise.

3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of petitioner- Smt. Swati Parashar was solemnized with respondent No.2 - Mohit Kaushik as per Hindu rights and customs on 29.4.2012.

4 . The petitioner lodged an FIR against the respondents No.2 to 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 34 of IPC read with Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Seeking quashment of FIR No.355/2022 which has been lodged by petitioner herself, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that they moved an application for compromise before the Court below on the ground that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are living together for last five months. 5 . The parties have amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement. Pursuant to the same on 3.2.2023, parties were directed to appear before the Registrar (J-II) for verifying the genuineness and correctness of the compromise.

6. On 3.2.2023 petitioner and respondent No.2 appeared before the Registrar

(J-II) who recorded their statements. Both the parties have supported the factum of amicable settlement between them. They entered into compromise without any threat, inducement or pressure with the petitioner. 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 -ÂÂ" 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.

8. It is not in dispute that on the case in hand, subsequent to filing of criminal case under Sections 498A, 323, 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 respondents No.2 to 5 herein. It is also not in dispute that petitioner/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 respondents No.2 to 5 and fully supported the contents

of the compromise application and has stated that she is living with respondent No.2 for the last five months.

9. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

9. ÂœLearned 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 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."

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.

14) In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the 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."

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, t he 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. 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 application 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 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 FIR No.0355/2022 of Police Station Nasrullahganj, District Sehore under Sections under Sections 498A, 323, 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 of accordingly.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) V. JUDGE mrs. mishra

DEEPA Digitally signed by DEEPA MISHRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=JUDICIAL, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=3ece46b8e3ea2cc1fa35126c71ddf298e10aaed d7345a5efb4e2a1a8a88446bf, pseudonym=EDBA3C23FD7AA0D583DA5AD3755C3F37

MISHRA 152C1CC0, serialNumber=E5AB7E7C0015E02D05F4525962F1C483 E415D288FB5C7C2082F662F2BB495B44, cn=DEEPA MISHRA Date: 2023.05.19 15:57:07 +05'30'