1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2028 OF 2010. APPLICANTS: 1] Shri Ajjay S/o Yadaorao Tiple aged about 35 years, Occu:Self employed R/o Anand Bhavan, Sarkar Nagar, Chandrapur. 2] Smt. Sindhubai Yadavrao Tiple Aged about 62 years, Occu: Housewife R/o Anand Bhavan, Sarkar Nagar, Chandrapur. 3] Mrs. Manju Tiple Aged about 50 years, Occu. Housewife R/o Anand Bhavan, Sarkar Nagar, Chandrapur. 4] Shri Shashikant Dattatray Barhate, Aged about 47 years, Occu. Press Photographer, R/o Rahatate Layout, Near Radio Station, Chandrapur. 5] Mrs. Ujwala Shashikant Barhate, Aged about 38 years, Occu. Service, R/o Raghatate Layout, Near Radio Station, Chandrapur. 6] Madhukar Shivram Tiple, Aged about 67 years, Occu. Pensioner, R/o Anand Bhavan, Sarkar Nagar, Chandrapur. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS : 1] The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ramnagar, Chandrapur. 2] Mrs. Sapna W/o Ajay Tiple, Aged about 30 years, Occu. Service, R/o C/o Shriram Ghutke, Plot No.143, Jaibhim Nagar, Post Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur. 2 --------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sashibhushan Wahane, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. D.M.Kale, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. Rajnish R. Vyas, Advocate for Respondent no.2 ----------------------------------------------------- C ORAM : PRASANNA B.VARALE,J. DATED : 04th February, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] By the present application under Section 482 read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are seeking the quashment of the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 158/2010, initiated by Police Station, Ramnagar, Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandrapur and compounding of said criminal case. 2] The applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 are present in the court today. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3] Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. 4] The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 was solemnized on 21/3/2005 at Nagpur. Applicant no.2 is the mother of applicant no.1. Applicant nos.3, 4, 5 3 & 6 are the relatives of applicant no.1. Non-applicant no.2 had lodged a report on 04/12/2009 with Police Station, Ramnagar, Chandrapur alleging that the applicants have committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. On the report, Crime No. 428/2009 was registered and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the investigating agency in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, which came to be registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 158/2010. 5] Learned Advocate Mr.Wahane for the applicants submitted that due to the differences between applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2, they were residing separately. The applicant no.1 was not willing to continue the matrimonial life with non-applicant no.2 and as such he filed petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Divn., Chandrapur, being H.M.P. No. 32/2010. Subsequently, the non-applicant no.2 filed an application before this court for transfer of H.M.P. No.32/2010 from Chandrapur to Nagpur and in the said proceedings, notice was issued to the present applicant no.1. The matter was then referred to the mediation center by this Court. In the mediation, the matter was 4 settled between applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 on certain conditions. The applicant no.1 has given consent to file mutual divorce petition before the Family Court, Nagpur, whereas non-applicant no.2 has agreed that she will have no objection if applicant no.1 files an application before this Court for quashing of proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 158/2010. In view of the terms agreed between applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2, a compromise pursis was filed before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur for withdrawal of H.M.P. No. 32/2010 and the learned C.J.S.D., Chandrapur was pleased to dispose of the petition as withdrawn. 6] Mr. Wahane, learned Advocate for the applicants further submitted that the husband and wife have arrived at a conclusion that they shall put an end to the matrimonial relations by getting divorce by mutual consent. It is further submitted that the couple decided to part with their ways and start fresh life peacefully. 7] The applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 are present in the court. On asking them, they have stated before this court that they have agreed on the terms of 5 the settlement as submitted by the learned Advocate as well as the terms which are incorporated in the mutual divorce petition before the Family Court, Nagpur. The non-applicant no.2 has agreed that she does not want to continue with the prosecution against the applicants. It is further agreed between applicant no.1 and non- applicant no.2 that they will not claim anything against each other. A copy of the petition filed before the Family Court, Nagpur, under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce is annexed with this application at Annexure-B. 8] Having regard to the fact that the applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 have decided to lead peaceful life and as they have decided that the criminal proceedings may not be the hurdle to start new life, the present application is filed. 9] The Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi and ors. ..vs.. State of Haryana and anr. (AIR 2003 SC 1386), observed that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law through justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. It is further observed by the Apex Court that marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to 6 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 counselled 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. 10] The Apex Court further observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A 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 7 hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interest of a 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] As it is already observed by this court that applicants are of young age, they have arrived at a settlement and as expressed by the Apex Court, it should not happen that the parties lose their young days in chasing their cases in different courts, I am of the considered opinion that this is a case where inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by this court. 12] This court asked applicant no.1 and non- applicant no.2 to make sure that they have agreed upon to resolve their dispute on certain terms, which are settled by them. In my opinion, the ends of justice would meet by allowing the application by exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code. 13] In the result, the application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. 8 The proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No. 158 of 2010 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandrapur are hereby quashed and set aside. Criminal Application is disposed of. JUDGE Diwale