S.PALANIVELUCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION Nos.25533 & 25538 OF 20071.Irwin Moses2.Ryan Moses3.Lyndon Moses4.Hosana Moses v. 1.The State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :: 05-09-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION Nos.25533 & 25538 OF 20071.Irwin Moses2.Ryan Moses3.Lyndon Moses4.Hosana Moses....Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.25533/20071.Irwin Moses2.Hosana3.Ryan Moses4.Lyndon Moses5.Aruna....Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.25538/2007-vs-1.The State, rep.by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Arakkonam, Vellore District. 2. Mrs. Latha Elizabeth @ Latha... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.25533/20071.The State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Arakkonam. 2. Mrs. Latha Elizabeth @ Latha... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.25538/2007Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For petitioners : Mr.R.SingaravelanFor respondent 1: Mr.A.Saravanan, Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side).For respondent 2 : Mr.R.Barathkumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E RIn both the petitions, the parties are same. First petitioner isthe husband of second respondent, who is the de facto complainant in boththe cases. Other petitioners are family members.2. On 18.01.2005, there was a scuffle between the familymembers, in which the petitioners are reported to have hurled filthylanguage at second respondent, besides assaulting her. Hence, a caseunder Sections 294 (B), 323 and 325 IPC came to be registered in CrimeNo.96 of 2005 on the file of Arakkonam Town Police Station. Subsequently, after investigation, charge sheet was laid against the petitioners for theoffences under the above said Sections.3. On 23.01.2005, the second respondent lodged another complaintwith the police, alleging that the first petitioner, her husband, wasperpetrating cruelty on her and that she gave birth two children, one maleand one female, through the first petitioner, by means of wedlock; in theyear 2003, the first petitioner contacted second marriage with fifthpetitioner by name Aruna; on 28.03.2004, she delivered a female child andsince there was a demand of dowry and matter of bigamy, a case wasregistered in Crime No.2 of 2005 under Sections 498 (A), 494, 294 (B) and506 (II) IPC and both the cases are pending for trial.4.

After preferring these petitions before this Court, thespouses, namely, first petitioner and second respondent entered into acompromise, by means of which they wholeheartedly wanted to settle thedisputes and misunderstandings between them finally and both of them cameforward to give a quietus to the estrangement. Both of them appearedbefore this Court and expressed their willingness for the compromise andrequested this Court to record the terms and conditions stipulated in thecompromise memo, filed in both the cases. The said terms are as under :(a) The 2nd respondent agrees to receive a sum ofRs.1,00,000/- from the 1st petitioner to end thedisputes between them. (b) The 1st petitioner has paid a sum ofRs.1,00,000/- by way of pay order No.037161 dated16.08.2007 drawn on Union Bank of India, Arakkonam, tothe 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent herebyacknowledge the receipt of the said sum ofRs.1,00,000/- and thereafter the 1st petitioner agreesto pay Rs.25,000/- within 6 months from the date ofcompromise agreement.

(c) The 1st petitioner agrees to pay a sum ofRs.1,000/- each and every month for the maintenance ofthe child namely NATASHA PAMEELA MOSES who is with the2nd respondent till the marriage of the child namelyNATASHA PAMEELA MOSES. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (d) If the 1st petitioner fails to pay the amountmentioned in Clause (b) and (c) as above, the 2ndrespondent shall have the right to initiate proceedingsto recover the same. (e) The 2nd respondent shall not pursue the Criminal Cases initiated by her in C.C.No.203 of 2005and 501 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, against the 1st petitioner and his familymembers namely (1) Irwin Moses (2) Hosanna Moses (3)Ryan Moses (4) Lydan Moses and Aruna, who are thepetitioners 2 to 5 herein and the 2nd respondent agreedfor quashing of the above criminal proceedings. " 5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that whenany criminal cases pending between the spouses and in case they settle thematter during the pendency of the cases, the settled law paves way toallow the parties to compound non-compoundable offence and in exercise ofinherent power, the High Court may quash the proceedings, to meet the endsof justice. The proposition of law is illuminatingly highlighted in thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another, 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 848, in the followinglines :"In the present case, the wife filed an affidavitthat the FIR was registered at her instance due totemperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting theimputations. In such eventuality, there would almostbe no chance of conviction. So, it would not be properto decline to exercise power of quashing on the groundthat it would be permitting the parties to compoundnon-compoundable offences.

It would, however, be adifferent matter if the High Court on facts declinesthe prayer for quashing for any valid reasons includinglack of bona fides. Further, in Madhavrao JiwajiraoScindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC692, it was held that while exercising inherent powerof quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Courtto take into consideration any special features whichappear in a particular case to consider whether it isexpedient and in the interest of justice to permit aprosecution to continue. The special features in suchmatrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty ofthe court to encourage genuine settlements ofmatrimonial disputes. " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

In the said judgment, Their Lordships have held that if forthe purpose of securing ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomesnecessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of powerof quashing and merely because the said provision enumerates non-compoundable offences, the Court cannot decline to exercise the power ofquashing and that such non-exercise of inherent power would prevent womenfrom settling earlier.

Guided by the principles formulated in the above said rulingand considering the special features, which are evident, it is to be heldin this case, being a matrimonial one, that the Court is duty bound toencourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. If a sacredceremony of a marriage is affected by some skirmishes, which arise betweenthe spouses, and re-union is not possible, and their relationship isirretrievably strained, in case the Court finds that the compromiseentered into between them is a genuine one, there is no stumbling blockfor the Court to entertain the same and in order to avoid future heart-burns between them and take the own course of life without reference tothe other after they got separated, it is just and necessary to recognisethe settlement entered into between them. Declining to entertain such arequest from both the spouses, taking the hyper-technical view andconsidering the proviso under Section 320 Cr.P.C., would be counterproductive.

Under the circumstances and following the dicta laid down bythe Hon'ble Apex Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, the memo ofcompromise, arrived at between the first petitioner and the secondrespondent, is recorded and accepted and the proceedings in C.C.Nos.203and 501 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, are herebyquashed.