1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3001/2011 Manisha w/o Sandeep Batra age 23 yrs, Occ. Nil, R/o F-19, Tirupati Supreme Enclave, Station Road, Aurangabad. Applicant. V E R S U S 1. State of Maharashtra, through police station officer, Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Jawahar Nagar, Aurangabad. 2- Sandeep s/o Kashmirilal Batra, age 28 yrs, Occ. Service, R/o 71, Vishnu Nagar, Aurangabad. 3- Veenarani w/o Kashmirilal Batra, age 53 years, Occ. Household, r/o 71, Vishnunagar, Aurangabad. 4- Kashmirilal Batra, age 56 years, Occ. Business, R/o 71, Vishnu Nagar, Aurangabad. Respondents. ................................................................................... Mr.R.L.Chhabda , Advocate for applicant. Mr.D.R.Korde APP for the respondent No.1. Mrs. U.P.Kale Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. ................................................................................... 2 CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 27th JULY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mrs. U.P. Kale, filed vakalatnama for respondents no. 2 to 4 and same is taken on record. Moreover, respondent nos. 2 to 4 also filed affidavit-in-reply and same is also taken on record. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. By the present application filed by the applicant under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prayed that complaint/First Information Report lodged by the petitioner namely Manisha w/o Sandeep Batra dated 11.8.2010 bearing Crime No.I-124/2010, registered with Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad and the criminal proceedings incidental thereto pending before the learned 13th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad be quashed and set aside. 5. The petitioner namely Manisha and respondent No.2 namely Sandeep are wife and husband each other and their marriage was solemnized at Aurangabad on 24.11.2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the mother in law and father in 3 law of the petitioner respectively. 6. It is averred in the petition that, petitioner wife was not able to adjust with the respondent no.2 husband as they had serious difference of opinion and therefore, the petitioner was required to leave the matrimonial house on several occasions and she was residing with her parents since 31.3.2010. Present petition also recites that petitioner wife lodged First Information Report with the respondent No.1 against respondent nos. 2 to 4 on 11.8.2010 under section 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Crime No.I-124/2010 was registered against respondent nos. 2 to 4 and same is pending for adjudication before the learned 13th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad. It is also contention of the petitioner that she filed proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 before the said Magistrate bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.915/2010. It is further contention of the petitioner that he had filed petitioner for dissolution of marriage against respondent No.2 husband on the ground of cruelty as per section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, bearing HMP NO.241-A/2010 before learned Family Court, Aurangabad, where in respondent NO.2 appeared and filed written statement. 4 7. It is further contended by the petitioner that during the pendency of the above proceedings, petitioner and respondent No.2 herein arrived at the compromise and decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and terms of compromise arrived at between the parties were recorded in the form of Consent Terms before the Marriage Counselor of the Learned Family Judge, Aurangabad on 15.3.2011a as well as the petitioner wife has also withdrawn the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which was pending before the learned 13th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad. Moreover, it is contended that petitioner wife and respondent No.2 husband have already filed petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and copy thereof is annexed at Exh.’D’. 8. Accordingly, petitioner submits that now she does not want to prosecute the First Information Report dated 11.8.2010 registered under Crime No.I-124/2010, against the respondent nos. 2 to 4, since parties have arrived at settlement and intends to dissolve marriage gracefully. Hence, the petitioner filed present application for the prayers set out therein. 9. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 appeared in the present application 5 and filed their affidavit-in-reply and stated that the applicant and respondent no.2 have arrived at compromise and they have already filed petition for divorce by mutual consent before Family Judge, Aurangabad. They also stated that like the applicant they also desire to end all litigations gracefully and want to settle the matter by way of compromise once for all. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 also stated that they have no objection for quashing of First Information Report dated 11.8.2010 bearing Crime No.I-124/2010, which was lodged by the complainant against them or any other proceeding incidental thereto. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 further stated that they have already deposited maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.75,000/- to the learned Family Judge, Aurangabad and ready to hand over the articles to the applicant as mentioned in the list annexed with the petition for divorce by mutual consent, forthwith. Accordingly respondents no. 2 to 4 gave their respective unconditional consent to the quashing of First Information Report and proceeding incidental thereto as prayed for by the applicant and consequently gave their consent for allowing the present application under reply. 10. Learned counsel for the parties placed reliance on the judicial pronouncement in the case of B.S.Joshi appellant versus State 6 of Haryana reported at 2003 (3) CPSC 269 of Honourable Supreme Court, where in it is held that : 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.” 11. The applicant i.e. original complainant and respondents no.2 to 4 are present today in the court in person. The applicant- Manisha admitted the contents of the present petition and her signature thereon as well as respondent nos. 2 to 4 also admitted the contents of 7 the affidavit-in-reply and their signatures thereon. It is apparent from the contents of the present petition as well as contents of the affidavit- in-reply that the applicant and respondent nos. 2 to 4 have resolved the dispute amicably and they desire to put an end to the litigations between both the parties. Accordingly, it is apparent that the applicant herein has withdrawn the proceeding filed by her against respondents under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Moreover, applicant and respondent No.2 also have filed petition for divorce by mutual consent before learned Family Court, Aurangabad and copy thereof is annexed herewith at Exh.D. Moreover, the terms of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.2 recorded before the Marriage Counselor of learned Family Court, Aurangabad on 15.3.2011 also have been annexed herewith at Exh.C. It also appears from the contents of the present petition and affidavit-in-reply that parties have acted upon the said consent terms. Pursuant to the one of the conditions of the said compromise, and more particularly, condition No.7, the applicant has preferred present application for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report lodged by her under Crime No.I-124/2010 for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 323,504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Jawahar 8 Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad. 12. Having the survey of the aforesaid facts, and also considering the observations made by the Honourable Apex Court in the aforesaid rulings, it is necessary to invoke inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to meet the ends of justice by quashing and setting aside First Information Report under Crime No.I-124/2010 for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 323,504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad, since it is apparently clear that the parties have settled the dispute amicably. Moreover, considering the settlement between the parties, continuation of the proceeding based upon the Crime No.124/2010 would be futile exercise and therefore, present application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 13. In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause [C] thereof and the complaint/ First Information Report lodged by the applicant-Manisha dated 11.8.2010 bearing Crime No.I-124/2010 registered at Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad 9 and incidental criminal proceeding pending before learned 13th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad stands quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ] JUDGE ... AAA/3001