Judgment:
A.V. Potdar, J.
1. By the present application Under Section 482 of The Cr.P.C., the applicant/original complainant is before this Court to quash and set aside the proceeding in RCC No. 132/2007 on the file of J.M.F.C. Raver.
2. This application is an exception to the general rule because such type of applications are always filed by the person, who are arrayed as an accused in the criminal trial. But this is an application where the complainant is before this Court, praying to quash and set aside the criminal proceeding filed by herself.
3. Rule.
4. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, application is finally heard at the stage of admission itself.
5. Before considering the submissions across the bar, it is necessary to summarize the facts of the application, which gave rise to file the present application before this Court. It is not under dispute that the applicant and respondent No. 1 are husband and wife. Their marriage took place on 23/01/2007. It appears that on 27/08/2007, the applicant wife had filed criminal complaint in Nimbhora Police Station of Tal.Raver, Dist. Jalgaon and on the basis of that complaint, an offence was registered against respondent No. 1 for an offence punishable Under Section 498A, 504 of IPC. It further appears that after completion of investigation in the said offence, charge sheet came to be filed in the court of J.M.F.C. Raver and the case was numbered as RCC No. 132/2007.
6. It further appears that during pendancy of the said criminal case, petition for divorce was filed by the applicant herein before the Court of Civil Judge. S.D.Jalgaon bearing HMP No. 302/2008. During the pendancy of said petition for divorce, both the parties realize that there are no chances of reunion, hence they decided to settle the matter. Accordingly on 15/12/2009, joint pursis was filed before the learned Civil Judge, S.D. Jalgaon, and after hearing the parties, that pursis was accepted and decree of divorce was passed. Clause 'C' of the said pursis filed before the learned Civil Judge, S.D. speaks that both the parties agreed that they will withdraw all the complaints and litigations pending in various courts. In view of that clause, an application was moved for compromise in RCC No. 132/2007, pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Raver. That application was opposed by the learned APP on the ground that the offence is not compoundable within the purview of Section 320 of The Cr.P.C., even after the permission of Court. In view of this, vide order dated 15/02/2010, learned J.M.F.C. Raver has pleased to reject the said application for want of jurisdiction. Hence the parties are before this Court.
7. Considering the submissions across the bar by learned Counsel for applicant, and learned Counsel for first respondent, the fact is clear that in view of the settlement arrived in the HMP No. 302/2008 before the learned Civil Judge, S.D. Jalgaon, parties agreed that they will withdraw the cases filed against each other. It appears that an application for compromise was moved before the learned J.M.F.C. Raver and learned J.M.F.C. Raver has correctly rejected the said application for want of jurisdiction.
8. During the course of submissions, both the sides placed reliance on the rulling given by the Apex Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in : AIR 2003, SC 1386 wherein it is observed that the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra reported in : AIR 1978 SC 47, does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of The Cr.P.C. or extraordinary power under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. Therefore if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. It is further observed in para No. 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.
9. So far as the facts of the matter before the Apex Court is concerned, there was matrimonial dispute between the parties, which was settled by the parties out of Court, but by virtue of hurdle about compounding of offences Under Section 320(1) of The Cr.P.C., the offences can be compounded by the parties without leave of the court and by virtue of the provisions Under Section 320(2) of The Cr.P.C. The question arose, if the offence, which do not cover to be compounded, either under Sub Clause 1 or 2 of Section 320 of The Cr.P.C., but in the interest of justice and to maintain the harmony between the parties, and particularly in the matrimonial matters, where due to some misunderstanding or otherwise, criminal cases are filed, but later on after the clouds of doubt were over and the parties have genuinely agreed to settle the dispute finally, then it is observed in para No. 15 onwards of the judgment that in such cases, after examining genuineness of the facts, the High Court can use its inherent powers and can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers Under Section 482 of The Cr.P.C.
10. The facts of the present application, as stated in the opening paragraphs of this order that this application is an exception to the general rule. After considering the settlement in various disputes between the parties, there is no doubt in my mind that the parties are genuinely desirous to settle the dispute once for all. In the premise, application deserves to be allowed by quashing the proceeding in RCC No. 132/2007 on the file of J.M.F.C. Raver by setting aside the order dated 15/02/2010, by which the compromise pursis filed before the learned J.M.F.C. was rejected. Hence order:
Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause A and stands disposed of.
11. Rule thus made absolute by allowing the application.
12. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, both the parties to bear their own costs. Application stands disposed of accordingly.