IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.07.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM Criminal Original Petition Nos.15673 & 15674 of 2008 1. Raghavendra Mukherjee 2. Mrs. Ratna Mukherjee .. Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.15673 of 2008 Bhavana Pratap .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15674 of 2008 -Vs.- 1. The Inspector of Police J-3 Police Station, Guindy, Chennai 2. Ms. Deepa Ebenezer .. Respondents in both the Crl.O.Ps. Prayer : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.4591 of 2006 now pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner in both the Crl.O.Ps. :: MS. Aparna Mukerjee For Respondent-1 in both the Crl.O.Ps. :: Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondent-2 in both the Crl.O.Ps.:: Mrs. Geetha Ramaseshan C O M M O N O R D E R The above Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4591 of 2006 pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The second petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15673 of 2008 is the mother of the first petitioner therein. The second respondent-Ms.Deepa Ebenezer was married to the first petitioner; difference of opinion arose between them; on the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent a case was registered and now the same is pending as C.C.No.4591 of 2006 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The above said Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4591 of 2006 on the ground that the second respondent and the accused have entered into a compromise and settled all their disputes and infact have filed a petition in O.P.No.2043 of 2008 before the learned second Additional Family Court, Chennai, seeking divorce by mutual consent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The respective parties namely the petitioners in both the Criminal Original Petitions and the second respondent have filed separate affidavits stating that they have settled all their disputes and the Original Petition for divorce by mutual consent has also been filed before the said Court and the second respondent has stated specifically that she has no objection for quashing of C.C.No.4591 of 2006 and give a quietus to all the disputes. In the affidavit she has also given an undertaking that she will not initiate any proceedings against the second respondent or her family members with respect to this dispute in the future. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing all the parties were present and they agreed for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.4591 of 2006. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the 1st respondent fairly submitted that the proceedings may be quashed on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675. In the said decision in paragraphs 12 to 15 the Apex Court has observed as under:- "12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. ........ ............ ......... 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian penal code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A 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 get 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 setting 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." On the same lines there is one another judgment of the Apex Court reported in RUCHI AGARWAL VS. AMIT KUMAR AGARWAL reported in 2005 (3) SCC 299, wherein in paragraphs 7, 8 and 8, the Apex Court has observed as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ " 7. It is based on the said compromise the appellant obtained a divorce as desired by her under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial compliance with the terms of the compromise she withdrew the criminal case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code but for reasons better known to her she did not withdraw that complaint from which this appeal arises. That apart after the order of the High Court quashing the said complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, she has chosen to file this appeal. It is in this background, we will have to appreciate the merits of this appeal. 8. ........... ............... .................. . ............. .............. ............... ..................... ........... ....... ............. .................... Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents. 9. In view of the abovesaid subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do complete justice, we should while dismissing this appeal also quash the proceedings arising from criminal case Cr.No.224 of 2003 registered in Police Station Bilaspur (District Rampur) filed under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein." 5. A perusal of the said observations of the Apex Court makes it abundantly clear that if the parties to the matrimonial dispute amicably settle the dispute, then it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. 6. In view of the facts stated above and in the light of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Apex Court decisions, the criminal original petitions are allowed and the C.C.No.4591 of 2006 pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is quashed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar srk To 1. The Inspector of Police, J-3 Police Station, Guindy, Chennai 2. The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai 3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras 2 CC To Mr.Geetha Ramaseshan, Advocate, SR NO.35079,35080 1 CC To MS.Aparna Mukerjee, Advocate, SR NO.34917 Crl.O.P.Nos.15673 & 15674 of 2008 SSK(CO) PMK/7.7.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/