IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P.No.- 3045 of 2013 1. Ganesh Kumar Garodia, Son of Late Arjun Lal Garodia 2. Smt. Manju Garodia, wife of Sri Ganesh Kumar Garodia 3. Vikash Garodia, son of Sri Ganesh Kumar Garodia All are residents 3182, Second Stage, Kumar Swami Layout, Bangalore (Karnataka) …. …. Petitioners --Versus— 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Shweta Garodia, daughter of Pawan Kumar Patwari, resident of Bhagalpur Road, PO & PS- Dumka (Town), District- Dumka …. …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioners: M/s. Indrajit Sina & Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocates For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. For the O.P. no.2 : M/s. Sudhir Sahay & Mitul Kumar, Advocates ----------- C.A.V.ON- 09.12.2015 PRONOUNCED ON- 05/01/2016 Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”), the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report registered against the petitioners under Sections 498(A), 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Dumka (Town) P.S. Case no. 74 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 542 of 2013.
2. The details of the facts is not required to be reproduced herein rather a brief statement of fact would be sufficient to adjudicate the issue involved in this case: At the instance of the Informant Shweta Garodia, the aforesaid case was filed with the allegation that her marriage was solemnized with Vikash Garodia (petitioner no.-3) on 09.07.2008 at Kolkata and in the said marriage, gold ornaments and other articles were given to the family of her husband and after marriage, she went 2 to Bangalore where she was residing with her husband and other family members including in-laws. On 11.01.2010, she was blessed with a female child, but the child was physically abnormal since her birth and within hours of her birth, she had to undergo an expensive surgery and the doctor opined that she will have to undergo 3-4 operation after few years and since thereafter, the informant was subjected to physical and mental torture at the hands of her husband and other family members of her in-laws and they also demanded money for treatment of the child. Since, her father was not in a position to pay Ten Lakh Rupees, she kept tolerating their torture. It is further alleged that on 31.03.2013, the petitioners assaulted the informant and tried to press her neck but on alarm raised by her, the neighbours came for her rescue. On intervention of Police, a meeting was held in Kolkata between the parents of the informant and the petitioners but it went in vain. On 18.04.2013, the petitioners brought the informant to Dumka where they demanded Rs.10 lakh from her father and when her father shown his inability to fulfill their demand, the petitioners hurled abuses and kicked her resulting she fell on the ground. Thereafter, the present case was lodged.
3. During pendency of this Case, a joint compromise petition by way of interlocutory application bearing no. 4509 of 2015 was filed on 29.07.2015 with the prayer that with the intervention of well-wishers, parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and the opposite party no.2/informant now does not want to proceed with the case and the parties have no grievance with each other and that they have settled their dispute amicably without any coercion and threat. As such, their prayer is to grant permission to compound the offence and entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.
4. It appears from the record that vide order dated 15.04.2014, notice was issued to the opposite party no.2/the informant and in pursuance to that, she appeared in this case and thereafter filed the joint compromise petition. 3 5. Mr. Sinha learned counsel appeairng for the petitioners submitted that since both the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and have filed a joint compromise petition, in view of the ratio decided in B.S.Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another; (2003) 4 SCC675and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another;(2012) 10 SCC303 the parties may be allowed to compound the offence. It was also submitted that in the changed circumstances, if the proceeding is allowed to continue, in such eventuality, there would be almost no chance of conviction and it would be a sheer wastage of the court’s valuable time.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Sahay representing the opposite party no. 2 also fairly submitted that the parties have settled their disputes and have filed a joint compromise petition, so in the interest of justice, parties be allowed to compound the offence and the entire proceeding and the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners and other accused persons may be quashed.
7. In B.S. Joshi & Ors.(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering a similar situation arising out of a case instituted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code held in paragraph- 14 as follows:-
“14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent 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 hypertechnical view would be counterproductive 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 XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.” Section 320 of the Code sets out the details of offences in different tables, which are compoundable by the parties and those, which are compoundable with the leave of the court. It is no doubt that Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not included in the above list of Section 320 of the Code but in view of the ratio 4 decidendi in the above B.S. Joshi (supra), it becomes the duty of the court to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. In another case Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 51 held as follows:-
“51. Section 320 of the Code articulates public policy with regard to the compounding of offences. It catalogues the offences punishable under IPC which may be compounded by the parties without permission of the court and the composition of certain offences with the permission of the court. The offences punishable under the special statues are not covered by Section 320. When an offence is compoundable under Section 320, abatement of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the accused is liable under Section 34 or 149 IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. A person who is under 18 years of age or is an idiot or a lunatic is not competent to contract compounding of offence but the same can be done on his behalf with the permission of the court. If a person is otherwise competent to compound an offence is dead, his legal representatives may also compound the offence with the permission of the court. Where the accused has been committed for trial or he has been convicted and the appeal is pending, composition can only be done with the leave of the court to which he has been committed or with the leave of the appeal court, as the case may be. The Revisional Court is also competent to allow any person to compound any offence who is competent to compound. The consequence of the composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 mandates that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. Obviously, in view thereof the composition of an offence has to be in accord with Section 320 and in no other manner. “ 8. In the above referred cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the parties to compound the offences deciding the ratio that when the parties have settled all the disputes between them amicably irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court within the frame work of its inherent power has every jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding and the F.I.R. The opposite party no. 2 has clearly averred in the joint compromise petition that she has now no grievance against these petitioners and she does not want to continue with the proceeding of this case. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the parties are allowed to compound the offences.
9. Hence, in the light of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred two cases, the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report registered in 5 connection with Dumka (Town) P.S. Case no. 74 of 2013, are, hereby, quashed.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is, hereby, allowed. (R.N. Verma, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 5th January, 2016 Ritesh/N.A.F.R.