Full Judgment
I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. This application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the order dated 8.12.2003 taking cognizance passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 92 of 2003.
2. It appears that on the basis of the complaint petition filed by one Sarawasti Sahoo (Opp.Party No. 2) in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack, I.C.C. No. 13 of 2003 was registered and the same was sent to the police for investigation which was registered as Cuttack Sadar Police Station Case No. 18 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 494/506/294/342/498(A)/307/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There are co-accused as shown in the F.I.R. besides petitioner No. 1, who are family members of petitioner No. 1. It appears that a petition for mutual divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack by petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2, who are husband and wife respectively. In that petition it has been mentioned in paragraph-5 thereof that the local gentlemen and well-wishers of both the parties have settled their dispute that the Ist party and 2nd party (O.P. No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 respectively) will live separately and the marriage which has been solemnized between the parties be dissolved with conditions that the petitioner No. 1 will pay a sum of Rs. 34,000/- (thirty four thousand) only to the opposite party No. 2 for her life maintenance. The learned Judge, Family Court passed a decree for divorce of the parties by dissolving the marriage solemnized on 1.1.3.1999 vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.2005. Now both petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2, i.e. the husband and wife respectively are living separately and happily and there is no dispute remained between them. It may be indicated that opposite party No. 2 who has filed a petition Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance, has already been dropped, Before this Court petitioner No. 1- husband and other petitioners who are his relatives have come for quashing of the impugned order.
3. Mr. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2-wife, supported the version of the petitioner No. 1-husband and submitted that there has been amicable settlement between the petitioner No. 1-husband and opposite party No. 2-wife and as such the opposite party No. 2-wife herself who is the first informant, does not want to proceed against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in 2003 (II) OLR (SC) 101 in Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2003 decided by the apex Court wherein it was held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the power under Section 482 of the Code.
5. However it was observed by the apex Court in the above mentioned case that there were special features in that case relating to matrimonial matter for which a complaint case was filed by the wife against her husband under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 I.P.C. Their marriage had taken place on 21.7.1999, but they were living separately since 15.7.2000. The husband's younger brother, father and mother also were shown as accused in the F.I.R. under Sections 498-A and 406, I.P.C. at the instance of the wife on 2.1.2002. But later on the disputes between the husband and the wife were settled and both of them agreed for mutual divorce. Thereafter, they prayed for quashing of the F.I.R., but the High Court dismissed the petition holding that the offences were not compoundable and the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to bypass the mandatory provisions of Section 320, Cr.P.C. The apex Court has held that when the special features in such matrimonial matters are evident, it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of such disputes. The apex Court in the cases of Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P., JT 1987(2) S.C. 361 and Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1988 SC 2111 had also observed that once the husband and the wife have settled their disputes and differences amicably and their marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, it would be an exercise in futility to file the challan in the Court and to proceed with the trial.
6. In the case of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2003) 3 SCC 693, it was observed by the apex Court that there has been outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times.
But, the apex Court observed in that case that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A I.P.C. was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A 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. A hyper technical view would be counter productive and would act against the interests of women and against the object for which this provision was introduced. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent the parties in reaching their amicable settlement earlier. It was never the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.
7. The instant case is also similar to that one and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that since petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2, the husband and wife respectively are desiring that they should get rid of the case, and are living separately and happily, in the interest of justice, the parties should not be compelled and dragged to the Court to face the trial or to appear as a witness.
8. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, according to the conditions made in the divorce petition, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 92 of 2003 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack against the petitioners is quashed.
The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly.