CR.MA/4189/2008 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 4189 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== PUNIT SHYAMSUNDER ARORA & OTHERS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER ====================================== Appearance : MR HITESH N ACHARYA for the Applicants MR DABHI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No.1 MR DAIFRAZ HAVEWALLA for Respondent No.2 ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 03/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and CR.MA/4189/2008 2/6 JUDGMENT Mr. Daifraz Havewalla, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 3. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 herein had lodged a First Information Report being Sola High Court Police Station I C.R. No.185/05 against the applicants herein alleging offences punishable under sections 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Subsequently, it appears that the parties have amicably settled the matter by way of mutual consent terms in writing which have been submitted before the Family Court, Ahmedabad in Hindu Marriage Petition No.325 of 2008 filed under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. Under the terms of settlement, it has been agreed that:- A. The applicant No.1 has paid to the respondent No.2 the amount of Rs.500000/- (Rupees Five Lacks only) towards permanent Alimony by way of the Bankers Cheque No.761140 dated 15.03.2008 drawn on the State Bank of India, IIM Branch for Rs.200000/- and Bankers Cheque No.008034 dated 17.03.2008 drawn on the Progressive Mercantile Co. Op. Bank for Rs.300000/- B. The applicant No.1 has given up all his rights and claim on the NSC Certificates of Rs.72000/- in the joint name of the respondent No.2 and the applicant No.1 and the respondent CR.MA/4189/2008 3/6 JUDGMENT No.2 can take the amount on the date of maturity of the certificate. C. It was mutually decided that the applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 will withdraw all the cases filed against each other and the family members. D. The applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 have exchanged all the properties and articles of each other and have no future claim on the properties – movable or immovable of each other. E. The applicant No.1 submits that the respondent No.2 and the applicant No.1 have taken this decision on their own and that they are not doing anything under the pressure of any person whatsoever. The applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 have keeping in mind their future have decided to come to a settlement. It is in these circumstances that the applicants have filed the present application praying to quash the First Information Report in question and the proceedings pursuant thereto. 6. Mr. Hitesh N. Acharya, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that in view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled the matter, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the complaint. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386, to submit that in matrimonial cases, it becomes duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial dispute. It is accordingly urged that the First Information Report and the proceedings pursuant thereto be quashed in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Daifraz Havewalla, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – original complainant has reiterated what is CR.MA/4189/2008 4/6 JUDGMENT stated by the learned advocate for the applicants. Attention is drawn to the affidavit made by the complainant at Annexure B to the petition, wherein the complainant has prayed that the proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.4, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur in Criminal Case No.7201 of 2005 be quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 8. Both the learned advocates for the applicants as well as for the respondent No.2 have jointly submitted that the First Information Report as well as the proceedings pursuant thereto be quashed in the interest of justice. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003)4 SCC 675, has held as follows: “13. 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 CR.MA/4189/2008 5/6 JUDGMENT 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 Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the 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 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 Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 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 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the above CR.MA/4189/2008 6/6 JUDGMENT referred decision of the Supreme Court, it is an admitted position that the parties have settled the dispute amicably between them, hence, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings in question. Besides, continuation of the proceedings would prevent the parties from settling down earlier. In the circumstances, the ends of justice would best be served if the First Information Report as well as the proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed. This is therefore, a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 10.In the result, the petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The First Information Report being Sola High Court Police Station I C.R. No.185/05 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No.7201 of 2005 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.4, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur, are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted today. (H.N.DEVANI, J.) shekhar/-