* HC quotes many cases and quashes 498A
* wife agrees to quash !!!
* at mediation hubby agrees to pay rs 7.5 lakhs
* wife has filed 498A on hubby, father + mother in law, brother in law etc etc
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-8757 of 2014
Date of Decision: 25.07.2014
Gulshan Kumar and others ....Petitioners
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Viney Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Pradeep Virk, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State.
Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Petitioners, namely Gulshan Kumar, Kundal Lal, Tarun Kumar and Tamanna are accused in case FIR No.64 dated 14.02.2011 registered under Sections 498-A/506/323 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Ambala City.
Petitioner no.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 is father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is brother-in-law (jeth) and petitioner No.4 is sister-in-law (jethani) of the complainant-respondent No.2. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.11.2000. However, out of the said wedlock, two children were born but subsequently, due to temperamental differences, both the parties could not live together and started living separately since 14.02.2011. Complainant-respondent No.2 made a complaint, on the basis of which, an FIR, in dispute was registered against the present petitioners.
During pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled their dispute with the intervention of relatives. It was settled between the parties that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 would obtain decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent and the petitioner No.1 will pay a sum of ` 7,50,000/- as permanent alimony and both the children will remain with complainant-respondent No.2. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for quashing of FIR, in dispute, on the basis of compromise.
While issuing notice of motion on 11.03.2014, the directions were also issued to the parties to appear before the trial Court for recording of their respective statements with regard to compromise and the trial Court was also directed to send its report along with statements of the parties.
However, in compliance of said directions of this Court, the statements of all the parties were recorded before the trial Court, wherein, the factum of compromise was affirmed. The complainant-respondent No.2 -wife has also specifically stated in her statement that she has no objection in quashing of FIR registered against the petitioners. As per report sent by the trial Court, the compromise is genuine and the statements made by the parties are as per their own free will. The copy of compromise with certain terms and conditions has also been placed on record, which has duly been signed by petitioner No.1-husband and complainant/respondent No.2-wife.
Since the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the proceedings and moreover, no purpose would be served, in case, the proceedings are allowed to be continued as ultimate result would be acquittal as the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution because of compromise, the continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility which will not only amount to wastage of valuable time of the Court but it would not be in the interest of both the parties also. The continuation of the proceedings would be abuse of process of Court and the same would not be in the interest of justice. This Court has power to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C have been designed to achieve that the proceedings may not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution as has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case State of Karnataka vs L. Muniswami AIR 1977 SC 1489.
It has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court that though justice has to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. The relevant observations of made therein are reproduced as under :-
" In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash the proceeding if it comes
to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court
or that the ends of justice require that the
proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High
Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters is designed to achieve that a court proceeding
ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon
of harassment or prosecution. In a criminal case, the
veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very
nature of the material on which the structure of the
prosecution rests and the like would justify the High
Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of
justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends
of mere law though justice has not to be administered
according to the laws made by the legislature. The
compelling necessity for making these observations is
that without a proper realization of which seeks to
save the inherent powers of the High Court to do so
justice between the State and its subjects it would be
impossible to appreciate the width the contours of
that salient jurisdiction."
A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR Criminal 1052 has also observed that the proceedings can be quashed even in case of non-compoundable offences, in case, the compromise is there between the parties. The observations of this Court are reproduced as under :-
" Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320(9) - Criminal
Procedure Code, Section 482 - Compounding of offences
which are non-compoundable under Section 320(9)
Cr.P.C. - Offence non-compoundable, but parties
entering into compromise-High Court has power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C allow the compounding of non-
compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where
the High Court felt that the same was required to
prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to
otherwise secure the ends of justice - This power of
quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes
In the present case, the dispute between the parties is matrimonial and the same is not against the Society. On the basis of compromise, the marriage between the parties has also been dissolved. In case of matrimonial dispute, because of strained relations, multiple litigation is there between the parties. Sometimes not only the strained relations are there between husband and wife but other family members and also the distant relations are implicated. Sometimes tendency of false implication is also there because of the strained relations. Even after acquittal by the Courts, some impressions are there on the parties which not only affect their future prospects but the bitterness becomes a part of life.
Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed in judgment PreetiGupta and another vs State of Jharkhand and another 2010(7) SCC667 as under :-
"30. It is a matter of common experience that most of
these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in
the heat of the moment over trivial issues without
proper deliberations. We come across a large number of
such complaints which are not even bona fide and are
filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry
harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous
social responsibility and obligation to ensure that
the social fiber of family life is not ruined or
demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions
of small incidents should not be reflected in the
criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are
filed either on their advice or with their
concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong
to a noble profession must maintain its noble
traditions and should treat every complaint under
section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make
serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at
an amicable resolution of that human problem. They
must discharge their duties to the best of their
abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and
tranquility of the society remains intact. The members
of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint
should not lead to multiple cases.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences are not
properly visualized by the complainant that such
complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony
and pain to the complainant, accused and his close
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the
truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority
of these complaints. The tendency of implicating
husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of
criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real
truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints and must
take pragmatic realities into consideration while
dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment of husband's close relations who had been
living in different cities and never visited or rarely
visited the place where the complainant resided would
have an entirely different complexion. The allegations
of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with
great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that
long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour,
acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst
the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge
that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband
or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even
for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we would like to
observe that a serious re-look of the entire provision
is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter
of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the
incident are reflected in a large number of
complaints. The tendency of over implication is also
reflected in a very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings
for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the
trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars
of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number
of these complaints have not only flooded the courts
but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting
peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is
high time that the legislature must take into
consideration the pragmatic realities and make
suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative
for the legislature to take into consideration the
informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in
consideration and make necessary changes in the
relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to
send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and
to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who
may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law &
Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger
interest of the society."
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.64 dated 14.02.2011 registered under Sections 498-A/506/323 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Ambala City along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua petitioners-Gulshan Kumar, Kundan Lal, Tarun Kumar and Tamanna.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist