IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37659 of 2009 1. INDUSHEKHAR PANDEY LATE RAJENDRA PANDEY 2. RANJANA PANDE W/O INDUSHEKHAR PANDEY 3. RANJAN MANISH S/O OF INDUSHEKHAR PANDEY RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.508, SECTOR A MAIN KASTURI NAGAR, POLICE STATION-RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BANGLORE. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANJALI KUMARI W/O SRI PAMOD SHARMA, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO-104, SHANTI BAN I, POLICE STATION-KANKARBAG, DISTRICT-PATNA ----------- 2. 18.03.2010 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2/informant who has appeared suo motu. The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband respectively. The husband and the informant both hold professional qualification of MBA. The husband is employed in the HDFC Bank at Bangalore while the informant was employed in the Human Resources Department of the Times Group at Bangalore till the present unfortunate occurrence. They married on 22.6.2007 in the town of Patna. The informant is alleged to have been driven out of the matrimonial home at Bangalore as early as 11.7.2008 when the present First Information Report has been lodged on 11.2.2009. The informant is stated to have filed a case for divorce registered as Matrimonial Case No. 618 of 2009 before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Patna. It is apparent that the couple is well educated. This Court does not consider it necessary or proper to take note of any further materials from the allegations or make any observations with regard to the nature of the allegations in the light of what has transpired in Court during course of the present proceeding 2 so as not to prejudice the case of either the husband or the informant in the pending divorce proceeding. It is made clear that nothing in this order shall be construed or have any effect in the pending divorce proceeding between the parties which has to be decided in accordance with law. The Court is informed that the informant’s husband has already entered appearance through Counsel in the divorce proceedings. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that they shall be filing an application for mutual divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court below at the earliest preferably within a maximum period of one month from today. Since an unequivocal undertaking has been given to that effect to this Court on behalf of the petitioner-husband, should he rescile from the undertaking and assurance given to this Court, and for which reason the Court is passing the order of the present nature, he shall not only be exposing himself to the risk of proceeding in contempt but also appropriate penal proceedings for having mislead the Court in a judicial proceeding with all its attendant consequences in law. It is made clear that all issues and rights of the parties inclusive of their obligations in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act shall remain open for consideration by the court below when it shall be open to both of them to raise all their pleas and defence therein. It is expected that to enable them both to start their new life the Family Court shall deal with the same on priority and dispose it off at the earliest date possible as per its convenience. 3 This shall be without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the parties under any other law on issues not the subject of the FIR or Divorce proceedings. The view that this Court has taken finds fully fortified by the directions of the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 (B.S.Joshi & others Vs State of Haryana & another). Paragraph 13, 14 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “13.The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G. V. Rao v. L.H. V. Prasad and others { (2000) 3 SCC 693} are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly extent which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counseled and brought about re-oproachment are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different Courts. 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 to 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 4 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.” The First Information Report registered as Kankarbagh P.S Case No. 55 of 2009 and the order of cognizance dated 17.8.2009 are accordingly quashed. The application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)