1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3990 OF 2009 Dilip s/o Nathu Chaudhari & ors. ...Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through I.O., Chalisgaon Police Station, District Jalgaon & anr. ...Respondents ..... Shri P.B.Patil, advocate for the applicants Shri K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Shri H.D.Patil, advocate for respondent no.2 (original complainant) ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 5th May, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri P.B.Patil, advocate for the applicants, Shri K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri H.D.Patil, advocate for respondent no.2 (original complainant). 2 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3 By the present application, the applicants have sought 2 quashment of Regular Criminal Case No. 173 of 2006, pending with learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon, as well as First Information Report No. 105 of 2006, registered on 27.5.2006 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, initiated on the complaint of respondent no.2 with Chalisgaon police station, District Jalgaon against the present applicants invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4 The marriage of applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnised on 29.4.2004 and applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of applicant no.1 and applicant nos. 4 and 5 are the sisters of applicant no.1. Respondent no.2 (original complainant) filed a complaint with Chalisgaon police station on 27.5.2006 under Section 498A, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants herein alleging unlawful demand of money of Rs.2,00,000/- and also alleging illtreatment given to her due to non-payment of the said amount. 5 However, it is stated in the present complaint that on 27.6.2008, before commencement of prosecution evidence, present applicants and respondent no.2 filed joint purshis (Exh.30) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon, since the dispute between them was settled and stated that they do not want to prosecute the said case further more. However, learned Judge did not allow the parties to settle the matter, since offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable under Section 320 of 3 the Code of Criminal Procedure, and accordingly proceeded with the trial. 6 On the face of the afore said position, respondent no.2 (original complainant) filed affidavit in reply in the present application and thereby submitted that during the pendency of the above referred criminal case, applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 herein filed a petition for divorce before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 20.1.2009 and the decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed by the said Court. Respondent no.2 also stated that after the said divorce, she performed second marriage (Gandharva Marriage) on 28.5.2009 with Somnath Vanji Caudhari and at present she is residing with said husband at Pasmal, Taluka and District Badvani (M.P.). She further stated that due to her marriage and since she is residing in Madhya Pradesh, she is unable to remain present before this court personally to compromise the matter, and therefore, she has engaged advocate on her behalf in that respect. She further stated that she is supporting the contents of the present application as well as she has signed the compromise and joint purshis filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon. She also stated that she has no objection for quashing of proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No. 173 of 2006 pending against the applicant before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon. She also prayed that her personal appearance may be dispensed with and she has sworn in the said affidavit before the 4 Notary on 15.3.2010 and same has been filed in the present proceeding. 7 Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the observations made by the Full Bench of this court in the case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs State of Maharashtra, reported at 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 856, which are as follows :- “Neither an offence under section 498A nor any other offence under the Indian Penal Code which is not specifically enumerated in section 320 of the Code can be compounded by the Court in exercise of its powers under section 320 and for that matter by High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code. However, we hasten to add here that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code include powers to quash FIR,investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code including section 320 of the Code. The Court could exercise this power in offences of any kind, whether compoundable or non-compoundable. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution and in conformity with the precepts indicated in paragraph 7.10 of this judgment. Further, the Court should ensure that object and purpose of passing any order in 5 exercise of its inherent powers should be confined to one of the three categories stated in section 482 of the Code. “ 8 Considering the facts and the circumstances in the present case and also considering the averments made in the present application as well as considering the averments made by respondent no.2 (original complainant) in the affidavit in reply filed by her, it is amply clear that the parties have settled the dispute inter se and respondent no.2 (original complainant) does not wish to prosecute Regular Criminal Case No. 173 of 2006 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon further more. It is also clear that the divorce has taken place between applicant no.1 and respondent no. 2 by mutual consent by way of decree and even respondent no.2 has remarried thereafter and she is residing along with her second husband. It is further clear that respondent no.2 has supported the contents in the present application and has no objection to quash the proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No. 173 of 2006 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon. 9 In the light of the afore said facts and relying upon the observations made in the afore said judgment, it is crystal clear that parties no longer bear grudge inter se and chances of prosecution ending in conviction are nil and allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of process of court, and therefore, quashing of the afore said proceedings would secure the ends of justice. 6 10 In the circumstances, present Criminal Application No. 3990 of 2009 is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and entire proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No. 173 of 2006 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon as well as First Information Report No. 105 of 2006, registered on 27.5.2006 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Chalisgaon police station, District Jalgaon against the applicant herein stands quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the afore said terms. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap3990.09