1 Criminal Appl.No.1675 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1675 OF 2010 1. Ratnakar Sitaram Joshi, Age-78 years, Occu-Pensioner, R/o.Raut Plot, Kurduwadi, Tq.Madha and Dist.Solapur, 2. Kusumbai Ratnakar Joshi, Age-68 years, Occu-Service, R/o.As above. 3. Prafulkumar S/o.Ratnakar Joshi, Age-32 years, Occu-Labour, R/o.Tukaram Nagar, Kurduwadi, Tq.Madha, Dist. Solapur, 4. Ishwar S/o.Ratnakar Joshi, Age-30 years, Occu-Labour, R/o.Kurduwadi, Tq.Madha, Dist. Solapur. APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Police Station, Ashti, Tq.Ashti, Dist. Beed 2. Ujwala Prafulkumar Joshi, Age-30 years, Occu-Housewife, R/o.Kada, Tq.Ashti, Dist. Beed RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Sayyad, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent/State. Mr.P.D.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2 Criminal Appl.No.1675 of 2010 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 10/10/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The present application is filed u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside CR No.183/2009 dated 21/12/2009, lodged in Ashti Police Station and consequently filed charge sheet bearing no. 13/2010 before the learned J.M.F.C. Ashti, on which basis RCC No. 88/2010 was registered. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this application can be summarized as follows : Applicant no.3 Prafulkumar and respondent no.2 Ujjwala married on 11/07/2008. Thereafter, due to matrimonial dispute, respondent no.2/wife left her matrimonial house on 20/08/2008. On 22/12/2008, applicant no.3/husband had issued notice to the respondent no.2 for restitution of conjugal rights. The said notice was not replied by the respondent no.2. It appears that thereafter applicant no.3 had filed HMP No.68/2010 before the learned Civil Judge, S.D. Barshi, Tal.Solapur. It appears that thereafter on 21/12/2009, respondent no.2 had lodged report in Ashti Police 3 Criminal Appl.No.1675 of 2010 Station against the present applicants. On the basis of said report, an offence came to be registered vide CR No.183/2009 in Ashti Police Station. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned J.M.F.C. Ashti bearing no.13/2010 on 12/02/2010, and the case was numbered as RCC No.88/2010. Present application is filed to quash and set aside the said CR registered in Ashti Police Station and RCC No.88/2010, the offshoot of the said CR filed before the learned J.M.F.C. Ashti. 4. It appears that after the proceedings were filed by both the sides, against each other in different Courts, the well-wishers of the parties tried to solve their dispute, but the honest efforts of those persons became futile and now the statement is made by the parties that there are no chances of re-union between them. They arrived at amicable settlement and agreed that the joint petition for divorce by mutual consent will be filed before the proper Court. It is also decided to pay certain amount by the applicant no.3 to respondent no.2 in lieu of the maintenance and out of that amount, Rs.25,000/- is already paid to the respondent no.2 by the applicant no.3. It is also agreed between the parties that at the time of filing of petition for divorce by mutual consent, the balance amount, agreed between the parties, will be paid to the respondent no.2 by the applicant no.3. It is also agreed between the parties that the applicant no.3 will withdraw the petition for restitution of conjugal rights pending before the Civil Judge, S.D. Barshi, Dist.Solapur and the respondent no.2 4 Criminal Appl.No.1675 of 2010 will withdraw the criminal prosecution filed against these applicants pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Ashti RCC No.88/2010. As the offence u/s. 498-A of the I.P.C. is not compoundable within the purview of section 320(1)(2) of the Cr.P.C., even though as the remaining offences are compoundable, the parties are before this Curt by way of this application. 5. Today when this petition came up for hearing, joint affidavit is filed by the 3rd applicant and 2nd respondent about the terms of agreement agreed between themselves. It is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 6. Consistently, this Court has taken a view that though the offence punishable u/s 498A of the IPC 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 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 5 Criminal Appl.No.1675 of 2010 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. 7. 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 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. 8. 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 6 Criminal Appl.No.1675 of 2010 allow the parties to compound the offence and hence it is also desirable to quash the proceedings of RCC No.88/2010. 9. Even though the consistent view is taken by this Court as stated in paragraphs supra, then the parties may be permitted to compound the offence punishable u/s. 498(A) of the IPC. In the case in hand, the parties have settled their dispute but as they have come to the conclusion that now there are no chances of re-union, then by consent, they have decided to reside separately. In view of this, to give the full stop to the matrimonial dispute, it is necessary to allow the parties to compound the offence as they agreed and stated vide joint affidavit today filed by the applicant no.3 and respondent no.2 , who are present in the Court and identified by their respective counsels. Considering the future of the applicant no.3 and respondent no.2, it is necessary to allow them to compound the offence. In the result, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. The offence registered at CR No.183/2009 in Ashti Police Station, consequently the criminal case filed registered as RCC No.88/2010 is also quashed and set aside. Rule thus made absolute. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/OCT.2011/cri.appl.1675-10