{1} Cri. Application No.2473/2010 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2473 OF 2010 1. Rajdhar Gangadhar Bothe APPLICANTS Age-30 years, Occ-Advocate R/o Shingi, Tq-Gangapur Dist-Aurangabad 2. Gangadhar Shripat Bothe Age-70 years, Occ-Agri R/o As above 3. Sumanbai Gangadhar Bothe Age-65 years, Occ-Household R/o As above VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through Investigation Officer Gangapur Police Statioon Dist-Aurangabad 2. Sunita Rajdhar Bothe Age-25 years, Occ-Household R/o Shingi, Tq-Gangapur Dist-Aurangabad ....... Mr.R.V.Gore, Advocate for the applicants Mr.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent State Mr.G.J.Pahilwan, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] {2} Cri. Application No.2473/2010 DATE:16 th September 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. By this application, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the proceedings of RCC No.29/2008 pending on the file of learned JMFC, Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad filed u/s 498A, 494, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Head finally by consent. 3. At the outset, the facts, which gave rise to file present criminal application may briefly be stated thus- Applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 got married 03.02.2000. Applicants No.2 and 3 are the parents of applicant No.1 and parents in law of respondent No.2. It appears that on 01.05.2007, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with Gangapur police station alleging that though she was treated properly for about 1 ½ to 2 years after the marriage, yet thereafter she was ill-treated by the {3} Cri. Application No.2473/2010 applicants contending that she is not fair looking, not well educated, did not bring any dowry and she is unable to conceive. Respondent No.2 further alleged that she was asked to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents for purchase of tractor or to given divorce. It is also alleged that as the demands of the applicants were not fulfilled, she was driven out of her matrimonial house. It is further alleged that applicant No.1 secretly got married with one Laxmibai in a temple on 17.03.2007 and since then they are residing as husband and wife. On 25.03.2007, when respondent No.2 went to her matrimonial house along with her parents to enquire about the said marriage, her golden ornaments were snatched by the applicants and she was not allowed to enter into the house. On the basis of the said complaint, an offence was registered with Gangapur police station and on completion of the investigation charge sheet came to be filed before JMFC, Gangapur and the case is numbered as RCC No.29/2008. 4. It is contended in the application that after registration of the case in the Court of JMFC, Gangapur, the parties have arrived at settlement and since about 1 ½ years prior to filing of {4} Cri. Application No.2473/2010 the present application, respondent No.2 is residing with the applicants. 5. On notice of this application being issued, respondent No.2 appeared through advocate and filed affidavit in reply contending that due to misunderstanding between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 she had filed the said complaint, but since last 2 and ½ yeas, she is residing with the applicants and now there is no dispute pending between them. It is further contended that she does not intend to prosecute the complaint further. She has also expressed her willful desire for amicable settlement before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants urged that though respondent No.2 intend not to prosecute the complaint further, yet the offence complained is not compoundable within the purview of section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code and hence respondent No.2, though desired, could not withdraw the complaint lodged by herself. It is further submitted that the offence complained is the offshoot of the matrimonial dispute and misunderstanding between {5} Cri. Application No.2473/2010 the couple. It is further urged that now they have realized that the dispute between them was due to misunderstanding. Therefore, it is requested to allow the parties to compound the offence, in the interest of justice and considering their relations, in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported this contention. 7. Consistently, this Court has taken a view that though the offence punishable u/s 498A is not compoundable, yet considering the view taken by the Apex Court in the matter of “B.S.Joshi and Others V/s State of Haryana” AIR 2003 SC 1386 so also in the matter of “Madhu Limaye V/s State of Maharashtra” AIR 1978 SC 47, the same can be compounded in view of the interest of the parties and keeping in mind the principle that the welfare of parties is the supreme law. The Apex Court, in Joshi’s judgment has observed that Madhu Limaye’s case does not lay down any general proposition limiting the power of quashing the criminal proceedings of FIR or complaint as vested in Section {6} Cri. Application No.2473/2010 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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. It is further observed by the Apex Court that the special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 8. So far as facts of the matter before the Apex Court is concerned, there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties, which was settled by the parties out of Court, but the question arose that though the offence does not cover under sub section (1) or (2) of section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, yet in the interest of justice and to maintain the harmony between the parties, particularly in matrimonial matters where due to some misunderstanding criminal cases are filed, but later on after the clouds of doubt are over and the parties genuinely agree to settle the dispute finally, then the Apex Court has held that after {7} Cri. Application No.2473/2010 examining the genuineness of the facts, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers and can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 9. In view of the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra and for the betterment of the parties, it is desirable to allow the parties to compound the offence and hence it is also desirable to quash the proceedings of RCC No.29/2008. 10. In the result, the application succeeds. Proceedings of RCC No.29/2008, pending on the file of JMFC, Gangapur, Dist- Aurangabad are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute as indicated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/criapln2473-10