CR.MA/5629/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 5629 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= VIRENDRABHAI NARANBHAI BARAD & ANR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR ========================================================= Appearance : MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Applicants:1-2 MR LB DABHI ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent: 1, MR PB SHETH, for Respondent:2 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 01/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Gujarat and Mr.P.B.Sheth, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on CR.MA/5629/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT behalf of respondent No.2-original complainant. 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 3. The factual background of the case is that the respondent No.2 herein had lodged a complaint against the petitioners and other accused persons alleging commission of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which came to be registered as a First Information Report vide Limdi Police Station I-C.R.No.24 of 2008. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned Court and the same came to be registered as Criminal Case No.798 of 2008 and is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Limdi. In the complaint, it was alleged that marriage between the petitioner No.2 and the son of respondent No.2 was solemnized for which the respondent No.2 paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners. However, a few days after the marriage, petitioner No.2 had left the house of respondent No.2, consequently the respondent No.2 lodged the complaint in question. 4. Subsequently, it appears that the parties have settled the matter and the petitioner No.2 has returned back to her husband viz. Jagdishbhai Rameshchandra Joshi who is the son of the respondent No.2- original complainant. In view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the petitioner No.2 had returned to her matrimonial home, CR.MA/5629/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT the grievance of the respondent No.2-complainant no longer survives, hence, the present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the complaint in question. 5. Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that in view of settlement arrived at between the parties and more so considering the fact that the petitioner No.2 has returned to her matrimonial home, the complaint in question is required to be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. Mr.P.B.Sheth, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has tendered affidavit of respondent No.2-complainant as well as his son Jagdishbhai Rameshchandra Joshi- the husband of petitioner No.2 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner No.2 has decided to reunite with Jagdishbhai Rameshchandra Joshi and that there is no longer any dispute between the parties. They have urged that the proceedings in question be quashed, in the interest of justice. 7. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 has submitted that both Jagdishbhai Rameshchandra Joshi as well as respondent No.2-original complainant are present before the Court and on their instructions, he states that they have no objection if the complaint in question is quashed. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003)4 SCC 675, has held as follows: “13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G. V. Rao v. CR.MA/5629/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT 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 counselled 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 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 or 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 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 CR.MA/5629/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT the Code.” 9. It is settled law as held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, that in case of matrimonial disputes, the Courts should encourage settlement between the parties. In the facts of the present case, the parties have amicably settled the disputes between them. Moreover, the petitioner No.2 has returned to her matrimonial home and has reunited with the son of the respondent No.2-original complainant. In the circumstances, continuation of proceedings would not permit the petitioner No.2 to reside peacefully with the son of the complainant. In these circumstances, this is a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by quashing the complaint so that the parties can settle down early in life. 10.For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and, is, accordingly, allowed. The First Information Report registered vide Limdi Police Station I- C.R.No.24 of 2008 as well as the proceedings arising therefrom and the Criminal Case No.798 of 2008, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Limdi, are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct Service is permitted. (HARSHA DEVANI, J.) Amit/-