[ENTITY] Applicant(s)V/S[ENTITY] R/CR.MA/6958/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 6958 of 2013 [ENTITY] Applicant(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 1 Respondent(s) Appearance: MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 26/08/2013 ORAL ORDER
1) Rule.
Mr. [ENTITY], learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the first respondent and Mr. [ENTITY], learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the second respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2) By this application under [SECTION] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19[SECTION]3 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) the applicant seeks quashing of the first information report registered vide Vadodara City Police Station I- C.R. No.155 of 2011.
3) The facts of the case stated briefly are that the second respondent lodged the above referred first information report against the applicant and his parents alleging commission of the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It appears that upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the original accused No.2 and 3, whereas the applicant herein was shown to be an absconding accused. During the course of trial, the second respondent, in her testimony, stated that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and that her husband, namely, the applicant herein has sent her a Talaknama on 10.08.2012. She has further stated that she has willingly accepted the Talaknama and that the compromise has been arrived at of her free will without any pressure from the accused.
4) In the proceedings of [CASE NUMBER] emanating from the first information report in question, the accused No.2 and 3 came to be acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara.
5) Mr. [ENTITY], learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. [ENTITY], learned advocate for the second respondent have jointly submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the second respondent is no longer interested in prosecuting the applicant herein and, as such, she has no objection if the first information report and all proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.
6) This court has also heard Mr. [ENTITY], learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.
[SECTION]) From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that after lodging the first information report in question, the second respondent, during the course of the trial, has deposed before the trial court that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties, pursuant to which, her husband, namely, the applicant herein has divorced her and that she has willingly accepted the Talaknama. She has also admitted that she has willingly entered into the compromise without any pressure from the accused. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record and the deposition of the first informant, has acquitted the accused No.2 and 3. In the light of the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that the settlement also covers the applicant herein. As noted hereinabove, in the case of the accused No.2 and 3, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties they have been acquitted. Therefore, when the said settlement also applies to the applicant herein, it goes without saying that proceedings if permitted to proceed further would end in an acquittal. Under the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served if the prosecution is permitted to be continued. Moreover, it is apparent that the dispute involved in the present case is a matrimonial dispute and the parties, namely, the applicant- husband and the second respondent - wife have amicably resolved the differences.
8) In B. S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 4 SCC 6[SECTION]5, the Supreme Court has held thus:
The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G. V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others 2000) 3 SCC 693) are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly extent which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different Courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing [SECTION] in the [ACT] was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. [SECTION] 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 hyper-technical view would be counter productive 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 [SECTION] of [ACT].
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and [SECTION] of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under [SECTION] of the Code.
9) In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court was dealing with a case whereby the High Court had declined the prayer for quashing of the prosecution for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] despite a compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused. The High Court had taken the view that since the offence punishable under [SECTION] was not compoundable, the settlement between the parties could not be recognised nor the pending proceedings quashed. The court summed up the approach to be adopted in such cases in the following words:
We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as 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 utilised 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.
We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs 250 which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the latter case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case direct that FIR No. 155 dated 1[SECTION]-11-2001 PS Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed.
10) In the light of the principles propounded in the above decisions, it is apparent that when the parties to a matrimonial dispute have amicably settled the matter between them, this court should exercise inherent powers under [SECTION] of the Code for quashing the first information report so as to enable the parties to settle down in life at the earliest. On the other hand continuance of the proceedings would come in the way of the parties in settling down in life. This is, therefore, a fit case for exercise of powers under [SECTION] of the Code.
11) For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The first information report registered vide Vadodara City Police Station I-C.R. No.155 of 2011 as well as all proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
([ENTITY], J.) Vahid Page of 6