CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 93 v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Mr. Rishi Bhuta for the applicant. Mr. Devendra Udani for R-3. Mr. Rajesh More, APP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : January 23, 2012. P. C. :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Udani, Learned counsel waives service for respondent no.3 and learned APP waives service for respondent nos. 1 and 2. By consent of parties, taken up for final disposal.

The above application is filed under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 341/PW/2011 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Vikhroli, Mumbai. The FIR in questin was lodged by respondent no.3 with the ParkSide Police Station for the offence punishable under section 498A of the IPC.

After filing of said FIR, parties have mutually agreed to -: 2 :- apl- 93/12 settle their differences and entered into consent terms. Under these consent terms, they have decided to live in peace and harmony without raising any past issues. Learned counsel informed that the parties are now residing together.

Applicant and respondent no.3 both are present in the Court. Upon specific query, respondent no.3–original complainant submitted that she has entered into consent terms with her husband and desires that criminal proceedings pending against her husband initiated by herself be quashed. Thus, it is clear that parties have settled their dispute amicably out of Court. -: 3 :- apl- 93/12

The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi vs State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 held that in the event of settlement of the matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498A can be quashed, even though, the offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below:

14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A 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 hyper-technical view would be counter productive 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 XXA of Indian Penal Code. In view of the above discussion, we hold 15. 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.

Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane versus State of -: 4 :- apl- 93/12 Maharashtra reported in 2008(5) LJ.Soft 46.

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint, it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. In these circumstances, and especially , in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interest of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. Accordingly, the application is disposed of by passing the following order: -:

O R D E R :- Criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 341/PW/2011 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate at Vikhroli, Mumbai is quashed.

(RANJIT MORE, J.)