CR.MA/3298/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 3298 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 ? =================================== DHARMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI GOHIL & OTHERS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER =================================== Appearance : MR UTPAL M PANCHAL for the Petitioners MR KP RAVAL APP for Respondent No. 1 MR HEMANG RAVAL for Respondent No. 2 =================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 16/04/2008 CR.MA/3298/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and Mr. Hemang Raval, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf 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 respondent No.2 herein is the original complainant, who had lodged a First Information Report which was registered vide Ghogha Police Station, Bhavnagar I C.R. No.7 of 2008 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners herein have filed the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the aforesaid complaint. 4. It appears that subsequently, the parties have amicably resolved the dispute between them and have dissolved the marriage by a deed of divorce/release deed. Respondent No.2 has filed the affidavit-cum-declaration before this Court in the present application, stating that the disputes have amicably resolved between the parties and that respondent No.2 has no objection if the present application is allowed in favour of the petitioners. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has ascertained the CR.MA/3298/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT veracity of the divorce deed as well as the contents thereof through the concerned police station. 5. Mr. U.M. Panchal, learned advocate for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of the divorce deed dated 20th March, 2008 and more particularly, condition No.6 thereof, wherein the parties have agreed that the complaint in question shall be withdrawn. It is submitted that considering the affidavit-cum-declaration filed by respondent No.2 as well as considering the fact that the parties have settled the dispute between them, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings against the present petitioners. It is accordingly urged that the First Information Report in question be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. 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 CR.MA/3298/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT 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 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. CR.MA/3298/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT 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.” 7. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the decision cited hereinabove, it is an admitted position that the dispute involved in the present case is a matrimonial dispute. The parties to the proceedings have amicably settled the disputes between them. In the circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Besides, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, chances of an ultimate conviction are also bleak. This is therefore, fit case for exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. Besides, continuation of the proceedings would not permit the parties to settle down early in life. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The First Information Report being Ghogha Police Station, Bhavnagar I C.R. No.7 of 2008, is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (H.N.DEVANI, J.) shekhar/-