Judgment:
ORDER
1. Heard the counsel for the parties on the interlocutory application jointly filed by the parties which has been placed today.
2. In the main application of quashing the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 17/01/2007 in G.R. Case No. 2357 of 2006, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offences under Section 498A, 406, 307/34 IPC against the accused persons.
3. Now, by filing a joint interlocutory application the petitioners as well as O.P. No. 2 (the informant) prayer has been made therein to quash the criminal proceeding of the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 2357 of 2006 in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. Some relevant facts leading to the present application are as follows:
(i) The O.P. No. 2 Smt. Bhavna Singh being the wife of Pratyush Chandra Madhur (petitioner No. 4 herein) filed a complaint case against her husband and in-laws that in her marriage heavy dowry in terms of cash and gold were given by her parent but the accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry and they further made a demand of Rupees 3 lakhs. The father of the complainant showed his inability to fulfill the said demand. It is said that since, thereafter, the accused persons started torturing and ill-treating her. The accused persons in order to kill her even assaulted her mercilessly but she could be saved by the witnesses.
5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate made over the complaint to the police for registration as F.I.R and for investigation. Accordingly, the police registered the case as Bishtupur P.S. Case No. 300 of 2006 under Section 498A, 406/34, 307/34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police, after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet, on the basis of which the cognizance for the offence under Section 498A, 406, 307/34 IPC was taken by the learned Magistrate, which has been challenged by the petitioners in this application.
6. Notice was issued to O.P. No. 2 on 21/02/2008 by this Court and pursuant thereto the O.P. No. 2 has appeared through her counsel.
7. Now, an interlocutory application has been filed jointly by the petitioners as well as the complainant Smt. Bhavna Singh, in which interalia it has been stated that both the parties have mutually and out of their free will and volition have settled their dispute and they filed a joint petition before the Presiding Officer, Mediation Centre, Civil Court, Jamshedpur. Thereafter, the Mediator drew up a proceeding and recorded the terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. The proceeding before the Mediator has been annexed as Annexure 1A/1 to the interlocutory application. From perusal of the proceeding of the Mediator (Annexure- 1/A) it appears that as per the terms of the compromise the O.P. No. 2 Smt. Bhavna Singh has already received the money mentioned therein and then the parties have also decided to file a joint petition for dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent as their marriage has irretrievably broken and there is no chance of restitution of their matrimonial home. Both the parties agreed that in order to set at rest the dispute between them permanently, both the parties shall withdraw all the pending cases filed against each other.
8. The question for consideration before me is as to whether the offences under Section 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. can be allowed to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that both the parties have settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise outside the Court.
9. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in : 2003CriLJ2028 while dealing with a case between the parties for the offence under Section 498A, 323 and 406 IPC, held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, the quashing of FIR become necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. The Supreme Court further held therein that it is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. Thus, 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.
10. In this judgment, the Supreme Court also noticed its earlier judgment passed in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre reported in (1988) 7 SCC 692 wherein it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. The Supreme Court further held in para-12 of the said judgment that the special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
(emphasis is mine)
11. In the present case, I find that the dispute between the parties are matrimonial and according to their joint interlocutory application they have now settled their dispute amicably and now they do not want to proceed with the case against the petitioners in which cognizance has been taken against the accused persons for the offences under Section 498A, 406, 307/34 IPC.
12. When the O.P. No. 2/informant herself is stating that she has settled her dispute with the accused persons, i.e. the petitioners and she has already arrived at a joint compromise agreement then in such a situation, in the language of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in : 2008CriLJ2243 , it can be said that where the question involved is of purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings since keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.
13. In view of the law lay down by the Supreme Court, noticed above, in my view, to allow the criminal prosecution to continue any further, i.e. G.R. Case No. 2357 of 2006, pending in the Court below would be a sheer waste of valuable time and energy of the Court and no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceeding in the light of the compromise.
14. Accordingly, this interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1452 of 2008) as well as the main quashing application are hereby allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 17/01/2008 as well as the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners being G.R. Case No. 2357/2006 is hereby quashed.