Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2746 of 2023 1 - Himanshu Jain S/o Shri Bhikham Chand Jain Aged About 29 Years (Husband) R/o House No. 460/461, Dilip Kirana Store, Naya Para, Near C.S.E.B. Office, Sadar Bazaar, Raipur, P.S. Gol Bazaar, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.),......(Accused) 2 - Bhikham Chand Jain S/o Late Dharam Chand Jain Aged About 60 Years (Father- In-Law), R/o House No. 460/461, Dilip Kirana Store, Naya Para, Near C.S.E.B. Office, Sadar Bazaar, Raipur, P.S. Gol Bazaar, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Meena Jain W/o Shri Bhikham Chand Jain Aged About 55 Years (Mother-In- Law), R/o House No. 460/461, Dilip Kirana Store, Naya Para, Near C.S.E.B. Office, Sadar Bazaar, Raipur, P.S. Gol Bazaar, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
4 - Priyanshu Jain D/o Shri Bhikham Chand Jain Aged About 25 Years (Sister-In- Law), R/o House No. 460/461, Dilip Kirana Store, Naya Para, Near C.S.E.B. Office, Sadar Bazaar, Raipur, P.S. Gol Bazaar, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Station House Officer Police Station-Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.),... (Prosecution) 3 - Smt. Himani Jain W/o Shri Himanshu Jain, D/o Shri Kranti Kumar Jain Aged 2 About 26 Years (Wife), R/o Mohan Para, Near Central Bank, P.S. Akaltara, Tehsil- Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.),...(Complainant) 4 - Superintendent Of Police Janjgir-Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate Mr. Hari Om Rai, P.L. for the State. Mr. Banhiman Roy, Advocate for Res. No. 3 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22 .01.2025 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) has been preferred by the petitioners, who are the husband and in-laws of the Respondent No. 3, seeking for quashment of the charge sheet No. 225/2023 and Criminal Case No. 538/2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akaltara, Dist- Janjgir- Champa (CG) for commission of offence under Section 498-A, 34 of IPC vide crime No. 13/2023 registered at P.S. Akaltara, Dist- Janjgir Champa. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the complainant/ respondent No. 3 Smt. Himani Jain whose marriage have been solemnized on 19/12/2021 as per their rites and rituals. The petitioner No. 2, 3 and 4 are the in laws of the complainant. After some time of marriage, dispute arose between the parties and on 01.05.2022 the respondent No 3/ wife has left her matrimonial house and has lodged an FIR against the present petitioners for cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. The present FIR as Crime No. 13/2023 for the offence 3 under Sections 498A, 34 of the IPC against the petitioners has been registered on the complaint filed by the complainant/ respondent No. 3 at police station- Akaltara, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (CG) on 03/01/2023. After due process of investigation, the charge-sheet is filed before the learned trial Court against the petitioners where the Criminal proceeding pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akaltara, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (CG) vide Criminal Case No. 538/2023. 3. During the pendency of the said criminal case, the parties i.e. petitioner No. 1 (Husband) and respondent No. 3 (wife) have entered into the compromise and have also filed an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Family Judge, Janjgir- Champa. Thereafter, on 28.08.2024, they have present before the Family Court, Janjgir- Champa and have settled the terms and conditions of compromise. 4. Learned counsel for the State, in turn, submits that the State has no
Decision
objection in case if the matter is disposed of by quashing further criminal proceeding pending for commission of offence under Section 498-A of IPC vide criminal case No. 528/2023 as the parties have already entered into compromise. A copy of the application filed under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the learned Family Court, Raipur, is filed along with the petition and the relevant Para 5 and 6 is reproduced here which is as below:- 5- ;g fd] vkosndx.k] laiw.kZ ifjfLFkfr;ks dks ns[krs gq, vkSj vius&vius Hkfo”; dks /;ku esa j[kdj bl fu”d”kZ ij igqps gSa fd nksuks vkilh lgefr ls fookg foPNsn dj ysA vkosnd dzekad 01 us vkosnd dzekad 02 ds fo:} iwoZ esa /kkjk 125 na-iz-la- dk vkosnu izLrqr fd;k Fkk rFkk vkosnd dzekad 02 us vkosnd dzekad 01 ds fo:} iwoZ esa /kkjk 13 d fgUnq fookg vf/kfu;e dk vkosnu izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftlesa 4 U;k;ky; ds ckgj esa mHk;i{k 8-5 yk[k :i;s ,deq’r Hkj.k iks”k.k ij jkth gq, ,oa mlds ikyu esa fnukad 09-08-2024 dks bZdjkjukek fu”ikfnr djkdj mldh ‘krksZ ds v/khu mlh fnukad 09-08-2024 dks :i;s 50]000@& vkosnd dzekad 01 izkIr dj /kkjk 125 n-a iz-la- dk vkosnu okil yh gS rFkk vkosnd dzekad 02 us Hkh fnukad 09-08-2024 dks /kkjk 13 d fgUnq fookg vf/kfu;e dk vkosnu okil fy;k gS vkSj mHk;i{k ds e/; Hkfo”; esa bZdjkjukek vuqlkj yafcr nqljs izdj.kks dks Hkh okil ysdj @ jkthukek dj fuiVkus dh lgefr cuh gS lkFk gh mHk;i{k ds e/; ;g Hkh bZdjkj gqvk fd vkosnd dzekad 01] vkosnd dz 02 ls bZdjkjukek esa mYysf[kr jde ds vykok vc fdlh Hkh izdkj dh Hkj.k iks”k.k dh jkf’k dh ekax djuk ugh pkgrh gSa] mDr bZdjkjukek dh izfr izdj.k esa layXu gS ftlesa of.kZr ‘krksZ ij mHk;i{k jkth gSa vkSj opu c) gSA 6- ;g fd] vkosnd dzekad 01 fnukad 30-04-2022 rd vkosnd dzekad 02 ds lkFk jgh rFkk fnukad 01- 05-2022 ls vkt rd vFkkZr 1 o”kZ ls vf/kd dh vof/k rd vkosndx.k dk dksbZ nkEiR; ‘kkjhfjd laca/k LFkkfir ugha gqvk gS vkSj Hkfo”; esa Hkh vkosndx.k ,d lkFk thou fuokZg djuk ugha pkgrs gS rFkk fookg foPNsn dj ,d nqljs ls Lora= jguk pkgrs gSA 5. In view of the categorical statement made by the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2, this Court is of the opinion that once when the complainant and the accused have settled their matter and buried the dispute and differences, it would be an important consideration for the High Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC to compound the offence. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another [2012 (10) SCC 303) and also in the case of Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another [2014 (6) SCC 466] 6. 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 5 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. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, 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. the offences arising particularly 6 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Another [2014 (6) SCC 466], has been held as under;- “29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/ investigation.....” 8. Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that the parties to the dispute having entered into a settlement and compromised the matter, there is a minimal chance of the complainant coming forward in support of the prosecution case and the chances of conviction therefore appear to be very remote and it would not be justified to drag these proceedings unnecessarily knowing fully well the final outcome. 9. In view of the statement made by the complainant and the accused persons and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & Another (2003 (4) SCC 675) and in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence. 10. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the charge-sheet and all further proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 538/2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Janjgir- Champa, stands quashed against the petitioners (Petitioner No. 1 Himanshu Jain, Petitioner No. 2 Bhikham Chand Jain, Petitioner No. 3 Meena Jain, Petitioner No. 4 Priyanshu Jain) who are the accused persons 7 in that case. 11. The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove and subject to terms and conditions of compromise between the parties. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sd/- Sagrika