1 Cri.Appl.No.1373 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1373 OF 2011 Dr.Rahul Nandkumar Mirwankar, Age-41 years, Occu-Medical Practitioner, R/o.B-46, Anand Nagar, Highway Darshan, Raghunath Nagar, Thane (West) APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. Dr.Mrs.Sunita Rahul Mirwankar, Age-40 years, Occu-Medical Practitioner, R/o. At Post : Indira Nagar, Shrirampur, Tq.Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.G.R.Ingole, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Smt.Anita Deshmukh with Mr.D.N.Patil(Bankar), learned counsel for respondent no.2. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 11/04/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant. Issue notice to respondents. Learned A.P.P. accepts notice for respondent no.1. Mrs.Deshmukh accepts notice for respondent no.2. Respondent no. 2 has already filed her affidavit dated 31/03/2011, which is tagged 2 Cri.Appl.No.1373 of 2011 with the criminal application. 2. Heard respective counsels for the parties. Today, applicant and respondent no.2 are present before this Court. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 4. By the present criminal application u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C., the applicant husband has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR vide CR No.77/2001 registered in Shrirampur City Police Station of Ahmednagar, for an offence punishable u/s. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the IPC, and the criminal case no.146/2001 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Shrirampur. 6. It is not under dispute that the applicant married with respondent no.2 on 07/06/1996. Out of the said wedlock, one daughter by name Siddhi and one son Yashodhan were blessed to the couple. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that the applicant as well as respondent no.2 are medical practitioners by profession and the respondent no.2 is serving in Kamgar Hospital. It is further submitted that after marriage, for some days, the relation between the applicant and respondent no.2 was cordial. Thereafter, dispute started in the year 1998. It appears that in the midst of year 2000, respondent no.2 left the company of applicant and started residing separately. It is alleged that a complaint came to be lodged 3 Cri.Appl.No.1373 of 2011 at the instance of respondent no.2 on 02/05/2001 on the allegation that the applicant alongwith his relatives had been to respondent no. 2 on 30/04/2011 and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for the construction of the hospital. On the basis of this complaint, an offence came to be registered vide CR No.77/2001 in Shrirampur City Police Station of Dist. Ahmednagar. 7. Thereafter, the parties have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court. To that effect, respondent no.2 has filed her affidavit dated 31/03/2011 wherein she has stated that the dispute between the applicant and respondent no.2 is settled out of Court and they have started living happily together and hence the applications were moved before learned learned J.M.F.C. Shrirampur, requesting to allow the parties to compound the offence, but as the offence registered u/s. 498-A of The IPC is non compoundable, learned J.M.F.C. Shrirampur had rejected the application filed by the parties, for which I do not find any fault with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 8. At this juncture, it is useful to give the reference of the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of B.S.Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003, SC 1386, so also the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Madhu Limaye versus State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1978 SC 47, wherein the scope of exercise of extraordinary powers u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of The 4 Cri.Appl.No.1373 of 2011 Constitution of India are discussed. “8. During the course of submissions, both the sides placed reliance on the rulling given by the Apex Court in the matter of B.S.Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003, SC 1386, wherein it is observed that the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye versus State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1978 SC 47, does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of The Cr.P.C. or extraordinary power under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. Therefore if for the purpose of securing the 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 whether to exercise or not such a power. It is further observed in para no.12 of the said judgment that the special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 9. So far as the facts of the matter before the Apex Court is concerned, there was matrimonial dispute between the parties, which was settled by the parties out of Court, but by virtue of hurdle about compounding of offences u/s. 320(1) of The Cr.P.C., the offences can be compounded by 5 Cri.Appl.No.1373 of 2011 the parties without leave of the court and by virtue of the provisions u/s. 320(2) of The Cr.P.C. The question arose, if the offence, which do not cover to be compounded, either under Sub Clause 1 or 2 of Section 320 of The Cr.P.C., but in the interest of justice and to maintain the harmony between the parties, and particularly in the matrimonial matters, where due to some mis-understanding or otherwise, criminal cases are filed, but later on after the clouds of doubt were over and the parties have genuinely agreed to settle the dispute finally, then it is observed in para no.15 onwards of the judgment that in such cases, after examining genuineness of the facts, the High Court can use its inherent powers and can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. 9. It is urged by both the sides before this Court that even though under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., an offence registered u/s. 498-A of the IPC is not compoundable, but by virtue of the observations of the Apex Court, which are cited in paragraph supra, this Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. The affidavit of respondent no.2, the wife of applicant on record, clearly discloses that the parties have amicably settled the matrimonial dispute outside the Court and started co-habiting together. In the interest of the applicant, respondent no.2 and their kids, it is 6 Cri.Appl.No.1373 of 2011 necessary to settle the dispute between themselves and in the interest of justice, it is necessary to quash the FIR qua the criminal case pending on the file of J.M.F.C. Shrirampur bearing no.146/2001. Accordingly the application succeeds. The Criminal case no. 146/2001, on the file of J.M.F.C. Shrirampur and CR No.77/2001, lodged in Shrirampur Police Station, both are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant. The application is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause B and stands disposed of. 10. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above. Application stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2011/cri.appl.1373-11