SSK/926 1 WP/3721 & 3719.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3721 OF 2011 Rupesh Kumar Ratilal Bamb ....Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Sau Sheetal Rupesh Kumar Bamb ...Respondents with WRIT PETITION NO.3719 OF 2011 1. Ratilal Bansilal Bamb 2. Hemalata Ratilal Bamb ....Petitioners Versus 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Sau Sheetal Rupesh Kumar Bamb ...Respondents Mr. V. A. Parshuramani i/b. Mr. Abhijeet N. Gosavi, advocate for the petitioners in both the petitions. Ms. Sheetal Rupesh Bamb, respondent no.2 present in person. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 14th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioners in both the petitions pray for quashing the criminal proceedings in RCC No.2229 of 2005 along with Judgment and Order dated 20th August, 2010 passed by the JMFC, Pune in the said criminal case. SSK/926 2 WP/3721 & 3719.11 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3721 of 2011 is the husband, petitioners in Writ Petition No.3719 of 2011 are the in-laws and respondent no.2 in both the petitions is the wife. The marriage of the petitioner-husband and respondent no.2-wife was solemnized in the year 2003. Due to some reasons, relations between the parties became strained and respondent no. 2-wife started residing separately with her parents since April, 2005. Yerwada Police Station, Pune, registered CR No. 115 of 2005 on 20th April, 2005 against petitioners viz. husband as well as the in-laws under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of the IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC, Court No.3 at Pune which which numbered as RCC No.2229 of 2005. The learned Magistrate who tried the husband as well as the in-laws was pleased to convict the husband for offence punishable under Section 498 A and sentenced him to suffer six months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay Rs.1000/- as a fine, in default to suffer one month Simple Imprisonment. So far as the in-laws are concerned, they have been acquitted. 4. The husband preferred an appeal in the Session Court at Pune being Criminal Appeal No.374 of 2010. The husband is released on bail and the said appeal is pending. So far as in-laws are concerned, the State of Maharashtra has filed an appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court at Pune, and since there is delay, Criminal Miscellaneous Application SSK/926 3 WP/3721 & 3719.11 No.25 of 2011 is filed for condonation of the delay. This application is pending. 5. Meanwhile, the matrimonial dispute came to be settled amicably and the husband and respondent no.2-wife filed Petition No.300 of 2011 in the Family Court at Pune for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1950 on 31st May, 2011. The marriage petition reiterates and re-affirms that the parties have settled their dispute amicably. The husband agreed to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to respondent no. 2-wife towards full and final settlement of the dispute. Out of this amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is already handed over to respondent no.2-wife and the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is deposited by the husband in the Family Court, which amount is to be paid to respondent no.2 - wife after withdrawal of the criminal proceedings as well as the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act and decree under Section 13(B) petition. In this petition, respondent no.2 - wife specifically agreed to compound/compromise the criminal case under Section 498A filed against the husband and in-laws. 6. In pursuance of the statement mentioned above, the husband filed an application before the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.374 of 2010 for permission to compound the offence. Similar application was filed SSK/926 4 WP/3721 & 3719.11 by respondent no.2-wife in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2011 filed by the State for condonation of delay occurred in filing the appeal against acquittal. Both the applications came to be disposed of by learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the offence under Section 498 is not compoundable, and therefore, husband and in-laws are respectively before this Court by way of the aforesaid writ petitions. 7. The husband is present in the Court. He reiterates and re- affirms whatever stated above. I have heard respondent no.2-wife who is present before the Court. On being queried specifically, she stated that she has gone through the contents of the petitions and have understood the same. She also reiterated that the matrimonial dispute is settled and she has received the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the husband. She asserts that the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- deposited by the husband in the Family court will be paid to her after withdrawal of the complaint under Section 498 A, the complaint under Domestic Violence Act and decree under Section 13(B). She stated that so far as the complaint under Domestic Violence Act is concerned, she has already withdrawn the same. She specifically stated that she has no objection if the complaint under Section 498 is quashed. SSK/926 5 WP/3721 & 3719.11 8. The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi verses State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 held that in the event of settlement of the matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498 can be quashed, even though, the offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below: “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. 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.” SSK/926 6 WP/3721 & 3719.11 Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane versus State of Maharashtra reported in 2008(5) LJ.Soft 46. 9. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint, it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. In these circumstances, and especially , in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interest of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of by passing the following order: 1. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) in both the writ petitions. 2. Since criminal proceedings in RCC 2229 of 2005 is quashed, Criminal Appeal No.374 of 2010 filed by husband and SSK/926 7 WP/3721 & 3719.11 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.25 of 2011 filed by State in the Sessions Court at Pune will not survive and same are disposed of. Sd/- (RANJIT MORE, J.)