1 Criminal Appl.No.3561 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3561 OF 2011 1. Pramod S/o.Sudhakar Ashtikar, Age-36 years, Occu-Educated unemployed, R/o.Plot No.47, Nyayalayeen Housing Society, N-8, E/1, Cidco, Aurangabad. 2. Sudhakar S/o.Ramchandra Ashtikar, Age-68 years, Occu-Pensioner, R/o. As above, 3. Kamalbai W/o.Sudhakar Ashtikar, Age-60 years, Occu-Household, R/o. As above. 4. Rambhau S/o.Bhanudas Bhavar, Age-74 years, Occu-Pensioner, R/o. Plot No.31, Shri Nagar, Behind Ulka Nagari, Aurangabad, Tal. And Dist. Aurangabad APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad, Tal. And Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Sanjivani W/o.Pramod Ashtikar, Age-26 years, occu-Service, R/o.C/o.Vishvambar Dagadu Mahashabde, H.No.9, 67/5, Pawannagar, HUDCO, Aurangabad, Tal. And Dist.Aurangabad RESPONDENTS 2 Criminal Appl.No.3561 of 2011 Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.S.D.Kaldate, learned A.P.P. for respondent State Mr.Rahul Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.2. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 26/09/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Present application u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed by the applicants, who were arrayed as an accused in CR No.I-102/2009, registered for an offence u/s. 498(A), 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the IPC, registered in Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad on 10/05/2009, to quash and set aside the proceedings of RCC No.901/2009 including the charge sheet filed before the 14th J.M.F.C. Aurangabad. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1 and learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision in this application can be summarized as follows : Applicant no.1 is the husband of respondent no.1. Applicants no.2 and 3 are the parents and applicant no.4 is the maternal uncle 3 Criminal Appl.No.3561 of 2011 of applicant no.1. It appears that somewhere in the month of January 2007, respondent no.2 had deserted applicant no.1. On 06/03/2009, applicant no.1 had filed divorce petition before the Family Court at Aurangabad, which was numbered as A-80/2009. On 13/03/2009, respondent no.2 also filed an application for maintenance u/s. 125 of the Cr,.P.C. against the applicant no.1, which was numbered as E-110-2009. It appears that both the petitions were heard together, but by separate judgment dated 13/11/2010, divorce petition filed by the applicant no.1 against respondent no.2 was dismissed and application filed by respondent no.2 for maintenance u/s. 125 of the Cr.P.C. was partly allowed. Rs. 900/- per month maintenance was granted in favour of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 has challenged this judgment and order of the learned Judge, Family Court by preferring Cri.Rev.Appl.No. 18/2011 for enhancement of the amount of maintenance. Amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court was not challenged by the applicant no.1 in any proceeding before any Court. Applicant no.1 had filed Appeal No.9/2011 questioning the correctness and legality of dismissal of his divorce petition. In the meantime, respondent no.2 had filed complaint before Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad against the present applicants for an offence punishable u/s. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the IPC. On the basis of this complaint, crime came to be registered vide CR No.I-102/2009. Further to the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present applicants in the Court of 14th 4 Criminal Appl.No.3561 of 2011 J.M.F.C. Aurangabad which was numbered as RCC No.901/2009. 5. It appears that when the Family Court Appeal No.9/2011 came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court, Division Bench of this Court has referred the dispute to the Mediator and in the result, the parties have arrived at amicable settlement. Accordingly, terms of settlement were filed before the Division Bench and on 05/08/2011, Division Bench had disposed of Family Court Appeal No.9/2011. In this application, order passed by the Division Bench dated 05/08/2011 and the terms of settlement were annexed. These terms of settlement were signed by the parties concerned and their respective counsels. 6. At this juncture, it is necessary to quote para no.4 to 6 of the terms of compromise arrived at between the parties : “4. Respondent-wife agrees not to prosecute regular criminal case no.901/2009 filed on the complaint of respondent is pending before Learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Aurangabad and further agree to give consent for either compounding or quashing of proceedings for the offences mentioned therein. 5. Parties to the dispute agree not to file/raise any dispute in any court of law in respect of wife and husband relationship and proceeding arising there from, and also agrees to withdraw all the cases pending before the respective courts. 6. All the pending proceedings between the parties in respect of claim for maintenance and other proceedings stand concluded by this 5 Criminal Appl.No.3561 of 2011 settlement.” 7. As agreed between the parties, today, on the statement made by the respondent no.2, who is also present in the Court, her counsel Shri.Rahul Joshi has withdrawn Cri.Rev.Appl.No.18/2011. Learned Counsel Shri.Deshmukh would urge that as per the terms of compromise, this application also needs to be allowed by quashing the proceeding of RCC No.901/2009. 8. Consistently, this Court has taken a view that though the offence punishable u/s 498A is not compoundable, yet considering the view taken by the Apex Court in the matter of “B.S.Joshi and Others V/s State of Haryana” AIR 2003 SC 1386 so also in the matter of “Madhu Limaye V/s State of Maharashtra” AIR 1978 SC 47, the same can be compounded in view of the interest of the parties and keeping in mind the principle that the welfare of parties is the supreme law. The Apex Court, in Joshi’s judgment has observed that Madhu Limaye’s case does not lay down any general proposition limiting the power of quashing the criminal proceedings of FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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 6 Criminal Appl.No.3561 of 2011 circumstances of each case. It is further observed by the Apex Court 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 facts of the matter before the Apex Court are concerned, there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties, which was settled by the parties out of Court, but the question arose that though the offence does not cover under sub section (1) or (2) of section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, yet in the interest of justice and to maintain the harmony between the parties, particularly in matrimonial matters where due to some misunderstanding criminal cases are filed, but later on after the clouds of doubt are over and the parties genuinely agree to settle the dispute finally, then the Apex Court has held that after examining the genuineness of the facts, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers and can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 10. In view of the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra and for the betterment of the parties, it is desirable to allow the parties to compound the offence and hence it is also desirable to quash the proceedings of RCC No.901/2009. 7 Criminal Appl.No.3561 of 2011 11. Resultantly, the proceeding of RCC No.901/2009, on the file of 14th J.M.F.C. Aurangabad is hereby quashed and set aside and accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Rule thus made absolute in the above terms. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEPT.2011/cri.appl.3561-11