IN THE HON'BLE HIGH C^URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.NO. LfJ'^- /2011 (S.B.) PETITIONER ^.^.......M^.l!L Presented by SM ..^.^; ^ OW...........I.l^.^...... RESPONDENTS ,./•/' w.^ COMPLAINANT/ (wife of the petitioner) •I- ^ 1\ .-"r /' '•fr f, .'.*- Rajkumar Mishra, S/o Late Ganesh Mishra, aged about 40 years, R/o Haldibadi, Chirmiri, P.S, Chirmiri, District- Korea (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Surguja (Ambikapur) Distt. Surguja (C.G.) - 2. Smt. Rita Choubey, W/o Rajkumar Mishra, aged about 37 years, R/o Haldibadi, Chumiri, P.S. Chirmiri, District- Korea (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. FOR OUASHMENT OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDI^GS AND PARTICULARLY CONVICTION AND SENTENCE HAS PASSED BY JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AMBIKAPUR IN CRmiNAL CASE N0. 106/2011 JUDGMENT ^)ATED 24,05.20 IF, IN WHICH THE PETITTONER HAS BEEN ORDERED TO BE CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR THE QFPENCE UNDER SECTION 498-A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SUFFER R.I. FOR 2 YEARS AND HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO PAY RS. 5000/- AND IN DEFAULT OP PAYMENT OF FINE 3 MONTHS ADDITIONAL R.I. AND_THE CERTIFIED COPY OF h """•^. l'.?h^ "•'^^ r<7 v .-y H // :;-''^- '3 - • ..-•>' (^ THE JUDGMENT IS FILED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE A/l ANDJ)ESP!TE_OFJi'ACT THAT AFTER THE CONVIGTION AND SENTENCE_PASSED_BY_THE_LEARNED TRIAL MAGISTRATE THE_CRIMINAI^APPEA1^HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT /PETITIONER WHICH IS PENDING BEFQRE THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE, AMBIKAPUR AS ^. .-„ -_„„__„__.-. CRIMINAL APPEALNO. 79/2011 AND DES TE THE FACT THAT_ON_THE_^ASIS OF THE WRITTEN REPORT LODGED BY SMT. RITA CHOUBEY THE RESPONDENT N0. 2 AT POLICE STATION AMBIKAPUR, THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED SESSIO'N JUDGE, AMBIKAPUR FOR PERMISSION TO COMPOUND UNDER SECTION 320(1) & 320(21 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND DESPITE THE FAC'L THA'L S^MT._ RITA CHOUBEY HAD STARTED TO RESIDE ALONGWITH HER HUSBAND JROM THE LAST 4 YEARS. AN_D_DESP!TE THE PACT THA'E THE JOINTAPPLICATION HAD BEEN FILED _ON 05.07.2011 BEFORE THE LEARNED SESSLQN_JUDGE AMBIKAPUR, BUT THE LEARNED__SESSION _JUDGE AMBIKAPUR VIDE ORDER DATED_Q6.07,2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 79/2011' DISMISSED THE APPyCATION UNDER SECTION 320'OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND OBSERVED. THAT TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING THE JURISDICTION LIES WITH THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT UNDER 482 OF CR.P.C. AND THEREFORE. THIS PETITION HAS_ BEEN RILED WITH A PRAYER THAT THE CONVICTIQN_IMPOSED BY THE LEARNED J.M.F.C. AMBIKAPUR IN CRIMLNAL CASE N0. 106/2011 JUDGMENT DATED 24.05.2011 BE ORDERED TO BE QUASHED AND THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ARISING OUT OFTHE CONVICTIONAND SENTENCE WHICH IS CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 79/2011 DESERVESTO BE OUASHED . •••c, ^ '.<y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH : BILASPUR Sinaie Bench: Hon'bie Sjiri Manindra Mohan Shrwastava. J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Cr.M.P. No.417/2011 Rajkumar Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh and^mother PETITION UNDERSECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRiMINAL RROCEDURE Present: • Shri N.K.Chatterjee, counse! for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State / respondent No.1. Shri Shantanu Kumar, counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner - Rajkumar Mishra and his wife, complainant / respondent No.2 - Smt. Rita Choubey are present in the Court. ' ORALORDER (Passed on 14th of November, 2011) ^- With the consent of the parties, heard finaliy. This petjtion under Section 482 CrPC has been fiied by tto petitioner for quashing criminal proceedings and setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence ^ated 24/5/2011 passed in criminal case No.106/11 whereby the petitioner h&s been heid guilty of commission of offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.i. Tor two years wWn fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, R.l. forttiree months. 2. Learned counsel for the petiUoner as weil as leamed counsei for respondent No.2 submitted that during the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioger and his wife have re-united and settied ail their matrimoniai disputes and infact, they have started living together. Leamed counsel for both the parties further submit that though, respondent No.2 had lodged a report !•!• < alleging crueity whereupon, the matter was investigated and charge-sheet was fiied by the police and in the trial, petitioner was found fluilty <rf commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC, the parties have settted ali their disputes to save their married iife. Leamed counsel for the parties jointty submit that an appiication for compounding offence was also filed before the Court betow by respondent No.2 in which, she had stated that during the^iendency of criminal case, both the parties had setUed their disputes in (he year 2007 itseif and thereafter, they were leading happy married life but the said appfication was rejected being not mainteinabie. 3. The respondent No.2, who is present in the Court,aiso submits that she is living with her husband since 2007 when the criminal case was pendlng before the Court. She submits that now she is living happily with ttie petitioner and therefore, she a!so joins the prayer of the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner may be set aside and he may be acquitted of e criminal charges so that ihe petib'oner and respondent No.2 may continue to live togetha- a happy mamed life. 4. Learned counsel for the petltioner submftted that wen where an appeal against judgment of conviction and sentence is pending, powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to set aside the judgment of convielion and sentence by applying the ratio of the judgment in fte case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Harvana and others. AIR 2003 S.C. 1386 as hetd in the case of Kiran Tulshiram irigale v. Anupama P. Gaikwad and others by the Dh/ision Bench of Bombay High Court. He further submitted that simiiar view has been taken by the High Court of Kerala in the case of Biiu Eappen v. State of Kerala and ^- *te another. iLR 2010 (I l Kerala 289 and Abduirahiman v. State of Keraia and another, Crl.M.C. No.4969/10 decided on 13/1/201 1. ri' 5. The Supreme Court in the case of B.S-JosW (Supra) held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash criminai proceedings or FiR or compiaint and Section 320 of the CrPC does not limit or affect the poweis under Section 482 CrPC. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering a case where a prayer was made for quashing criminal case in the matter of allegaUon of commisslon of offence under Section 498-A and 408 IPC in the baek ground that the husband and wife settled all their disputes and had agreed for mutual dh/orce. The Supreme Court considered the provisions contained in Section498AIPCtohoid- "14;, There is no doubt that the object of intToducjng Chapter XX- A containing Seciion 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevert torture to a woman by her husband or by reiatives of her husbmd. Section 498-A was added with a vjew to punish a husband and his relatives who harass or torture his wife to coerce her or her reiatfves to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view wouid be i&ounterproductive and would act against interests of women and agdnst the object for which this provision was added. There is every iikelihood that non-exereise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice wouid prevent women from setUing earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code." 6. The kientical situation arose in the case of Kiran Tulshiram Ingale (Supraj. The husband was tried for commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC and he was convicted by the trial Court. White the matter remained pending in appeai, the parties came out with settlement and there was a dh/orce with 4 mutual consent. The question arose as to whether it was open for the High Court to quash the criminal action in exereise of inherent powers even in a case which has ended with an order of conviction after triat. The question was referred for consideration to a DMsion Bench. Taking into consideration the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi (Supra), the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has taken a view that even in a case of conviction, inherent powers can be exercised and criminal proceedir^s can be quashed. 7. in the case of Biju Eappen (Supra), it has been held by the High Court of Keraia that even after convicUon and yhen an appeal is pending in the matter of offence under Section 498-A of Crf'C, if parties entered irrto seWement, it is within tbe power of the High Court to interfere under Section 482 CrPC and quash the proceedings. In that case, whiie exercising powers under SecBon 482 CrPC, the convietion was set aside and the appeal pending before the Sessions Judge was dlrected to be closed. The view taken In that case was again follwved by the High Court of Kerata in a subsequent case of Abdulrahiman (supra). < 8. Taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi (Supra) which has been subsequently reaffirmed in the case of Manoj Shanna v. State and others, Criminal Appeal No.1619/08 decided on 16/10/08, i am in respectfui agreement of the view taken by the Bombay High Court and the Kerala High Court that even after conviction, powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court in appropriate cases to quash criminai proceedings and conviction. -"!>< ;'^*€ L 9. In view ofthe above discussions, e petWon is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner in criminal case No.106/11 vide judgment dated 24/5/2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ambikapur are quashed. The learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur is directed to close and finaity dispose off the criminai appeal No.79/1 1 in the iight of the order passed by this Court fn the present case. ^ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge r