IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13868 of 2008 Rajiv Seraphim son of late William Seraphim, R/O House no. 5, New Patliputra Colony, Patna 13 at presently poseted as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Banglore. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Archana Kumari W/O Rajiv Seraphim, R/O House No. 5 New Patliputra Colony, 13, P.S. Patliputra, at present D/O Patrick John, House no. 21, New Patliputra Colony, Patna 13. ----------- 5 17.08.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, opposite party no.2 and the State. The present application has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 19.07.2007 including the Complaint Case No. 147(C) of 2007 in which cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. On 30.11.2010, the notices were issued to opposite party no.2 and further proceeding of the learned court below was stayed. The petitioner and opposite party no.2 got married on 27.01.2006 as per the Christian rituals and customs. Both, the petitioner and opposite party no.2, are present in the Court and submit that both have decided to part ways as they have settled their disputes, hence, the 2 opposite party no.2 is not willing to prosecute the present complaint. A joint compromise petition has been with the signature of advocates of both sides. The relevant extract of the same has been mention in paragraphs 5 to 7, which read as follows:- 5. “That the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 are living separately for more than four years and since there is no chance of reconciliation, the parties have decided to reach an amicable settlement by getting their marriage dissolved by mutual consent under Section 28 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 and for that matter the parties have decided to file a petition in this regard for getting their marriage dissolved by mutual consent. 6. That both the parties have decided to settle the matter on the terms and condition that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as permanent alimony out of which Rs. 4,00,000/- will 3 be paid through Demand Draft bearing Draft No. 840995 dated 12.08.2011 in the name of opposite party no.2 at the time of hearing of this case and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of Draft No. 840996 dated 12.08.2011 in the name of opposite party no.2 will be deposited in the concerned family court along with the petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and the same would be handed over to opposite party no.2 after grant of the decree of divorce. It is however made clear that the said matrimonial suit will be filed within a fortnight of the disposal of i.e., Cr. Misc. No. 13868 of 2008. 7. That it is also agreed between the parties that the payment of amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- will stand as full and final settlement of disputes between the parties giving an end to all litigations between 4 them. With regard to the maintenance case filed by opposite party no.2 bearing Maintenance Case No. 175(M) of 2007, it is stated that the opposite party no.2 will take all steps to withdraw the same after receiving the draft of Rs. 4,00,000/- and after the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,00/- in the form of draft is filed before the Family Court along with petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 28 of Special Marriage Act and she shall not make any claim in future”. In pursuance to the aforesaid terms of compromise, a draft of Rs. 4,00,000/- by Draft No. 840995 dated 12.08.2011 is being produced in the Court which is being received by Mrs. Soni Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 with the consent of opposite party no.2 to hand over the same to opposite party no.2. The balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is agreed between the parties to be deposited before the Family Court, Patna through Draft No. 840996 dated 12.08.2011 along with the 5 application under Section 28 of the Specific Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage will be filed within a period of two weeks of receipt/production of the copy of the order of this Court and the opposite party no.2 will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- after the grant of decree of divorce. Both sides do not claim anything apart from the aforesaid terms and conditions as stipulated above. It is further agreed between the parties that the opposite party no.2 will be entitled for receiving the maintenance, as directed by learned court below, till 31.08.2011. Considering the stand of the parties, this Court is of the view that since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, though the cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code which is not compoundable but the compromise can be given effect to by exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in view of the ratio laid down in the case of B.N. Joshi and ors Vs. The State of Haryana and ors, as reported in [2003(4) SCC, 675]. The relevant extracts of Paragraph Nos. 8, 11 6 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment read as follows :- 8. It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye case2 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 Code or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that 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. 11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia V. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre6 it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to 7 take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent 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 or her 8 relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of 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 XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, it is a trite law that the High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised:- (i) to give effect to an order under the code (ii) to prevent abuse of process of court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The Apex Court in the case of G.V. Rao Vs. 9 L.H.V. Prasad. and ors., as reported in 2000(3) S.C.C., 693 held that when there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties then it is always useful to allow the couple to settle down in their respective life at young age. Paragraph 12 of the Judgment reads as follows :- 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 erupt 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 rapprochement 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 10 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. Hence, considering the stand of the parties as discussed above and keeping in view that no useful purpose will be served in allowing to continue the prosecution as the continuation of the same would be an abuse of process of the Court, and in the interest of Justice the order of cognizance dated 19.07.2007 including the entire prosecution of Complaint Case No. 147 (C) of 2007 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna are hereby quashed. Accordingly, this quashing application is allowed. Amrendra/ ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)