cran5400.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5400 OF 2010 1 Ganesh s/o Kedarnath Swami Age 32 years,Occ. Agriculture, 2 Kedarnath s/o Malikarjun Swami Age 64 years,Occ. Agriculture, 3 Shantabai w/o Kedarnath Swami Age 62 years,Occ. Household, 4 Sanjay s/o Kedarnath Swami Age 44 years,Occ. Agriculture, 5 Jagannath s/o Malikarjun Swami Age 62 years,Occ. Agriculture, 6 Vimal w/o Kashinath Swami Age 54 years,Occ. Household, 7 Chandrakala w/o Jagannath Swami Age 44 years,Occ. Household, 8 Arun s/o Vishwanath Godare, Age 54 years,Occ. Agriculture, 9 Kashinath Malikarjun Swami Age 54 years,Occ. Agriculture, 10 Mankarnabai w/o Sanjay Swami, Age 34 years, Occ. Household, All R/o Bamni, Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded ...Applicants Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Ardhapur Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded cran5400.10 -2- 2 Sharda w/o Ganesh Swami, Age 29 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Bamni, Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded ...Respondents ..... Mr. Ganesh P. Shinde, advocate for the applicants Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 Mr. Rahul Awasarmal, advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. (VACATION COURT) DATED: 3RD JANUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT :- 1 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, matter is heard finally at admission stage. 2 This criminal application is filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the proceeding in R.C.C. 450 of 2009 pending before learned J.M.F.C. at Ardhapur, Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded, initiated on the basis of F.I.R No. 126 of 2006 registered with Ardhapur police station, Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. 3 This application is filed mainly on the ground that the applicants cran5400.10 -3- and the respondent No.2 have settled their dispute and the respondent No.2 wife rejoined the company of applicant No.1. When this matter was listed on 31.12.2010, at the request of the counsel for the parties to enable them to file joint affidavit, hearing of the matter was deferred and it was kept today. Today, counsel for the parties have tendered an affidavit across the bar, duly signed by the parties concerned. The said affidavit is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. The applicants and the respondent No.2 are present before this Court. On query by this Court, both the husband and wife have stated that now there is no problem as such and they have decided to reside together and to that effect the aforesaid affidavit is filed on record. 4 The marriage between the applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized in the year 1998 at Sawargaon, Tq. Hadgaon, District Nanded. They have two daughters viz. Pratiksha and Pranita, aged about 8 years and 6 years respectively. In the year 2006, there was some matrimonial dispute resulted into filing of complaint by respondent No.2 with police station Ardhapur. On the basis of said complaint, F.I.R. No. 126 of 2006 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. The police authorities have completed investigation and filed charge sheet in the Court of learned C.J.M. First Class at Nanded on 25.8.2006, cran5400.10 -4- which was initially numbered as R.C.C. No. 805 of 2006 and subsequently numbered as R.C.C. No. 450 of 2009. 5 It is the case of the applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 that due to temperamental differences between them, proceedings came to be filed by respondent No.2 against present applicants and other persons. Respondent No.2 filed complaint under Section 494 r.w. 109 of I.P.C. against present applicants and other persons bearing R.C.C. No. 446 of 2009 and respondent No.2 also filed application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. bearing M.C.A. No. 276 of 2008 in the court of learned J.M.F.C. Nanded. 6 It is the case of the applicants that the applicant No.1 i.e. husband and respondent No.2 wife, realized their mistakes and both husband and wife settled their all differences. Respondent No.1 rejoined her matrimonial life in June, 2009 and started leading happy matrimonial life. 7 The complaint filed under Section 494 of I.P.C. against the applicant and and others bearing No. 446 of 2009 came to be withdrawn and all accused came to be discharged on 1.12.2010. Other maintenance application No. 276 of 2008 by respondent No.2 also came to be withdrawn by respondent No.2 on 26.11.2010. It is cran5400.10 -5- the case of the applicants that the applicants and respondent No.2 on 1.12.2010 filed joint settlement before the learned J.M.F.C. Ardhapur in R.C.C. No. 450 of 2009 and have jointly prayed to allow the settlement and to discharge the applicants/accused in R.C.C. No. 450 of 2009. However, the learned J.M.F.C. by order dated 1.12.2010 has rejected the joint application of applicants and the respondent No.2 on the ground that the offence punishable under Section 498-A is not compoundable, as Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not permit such compounding to the said Court. 8 It is the contention of the applicants that since the matter is resolved and the respondent No.2 wife rejoined the matrimonial life since 2009 and also their disputes are mutually settled between them, quashing of proceeding in R.C.C. No. 450 of 2009 is necessary to secure the ends of justice. It is further case of the applicants that the present case is of matrimonial dispute and exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. will be productive and would act in the interest of applicants and respondent No.2 and will be in accordance with the object of Section 498-A of I.P.C. Therefore, the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the proceeding in R.C.C. No. 450 of 2009 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Ardhapur. 9 As stated earlier, the joint affidavit is filed by the applicants and cran5400.10 -6- the respondent No.2. The relevant paragraphs 9 to 12 of the said affidavit are reproduced herein below;- “9. That the respondent No.2 wants to withdraw the complaint, but due to non compoundable offence, the complainant cannot withdraw the complaint. Therefore, applicants filed this application for quashing. The respondent No.2 had no any complaint against the applicant No.1 and their relatives. The complaint filed by respondent No.2 is by misunderstanding and respondent No.2 does want to prosecute applicants. 10. That the applicants most humbly submit that as the matter is resolved and respondent No.2 wife rejoined matrimonial life since 2009 and also their disputes are mutually settled between them quashing of proceedings in R.C.C. No. 450 of 2009 is necessary to secure ends of justice. 11. The applicants submit that the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 450 of 2009 are necessary to be quashed and set aside and it will be productive and will act in the interest of applicants and respondent No.2 wife. 12 The quashing of proceeding in R.C.C. No. 450 of 2009 is necessary which would enable both the parties to lead happy matrimonial life. Hence all applicants and respondent No.2, pray for quashing of criminal proceedings in R.C.C. No. 450 of 2009 which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ardhapur, cran5400.10 -7- District Nanded.” 10 I have given due consideration to the pleadings in the application, contents of the affidavit filed across the bar and also oral statements of husband and wife made before this Court and after hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this application deserves to be allowed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. This Court has already taken a view in the case of Biswaroop Ghosh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 44, by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of (B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Harayana and Anr.), reported in 2004(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 93 (S.C.): 2003 DGLS (soft) 242: 2003(4) S.C.C. 675: AIR 2003 S.C.1386, and in the case of (Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. State of Maharashtra), reported in 2008(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 584 (F.B.) that the powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. under its inherent jurisdiction do not get curtailed by Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code, which prohibits compounding of uncompoundable offences. 11 In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that no purpose will be served by keeping this application pending. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. Vs. cran5400.10 -8- State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr) 2008 DGLS (soft) 2095: 2008 All S.C.R. 2111, in para 10 held that:- “The parties have compromised and the complainant Smt. Sadhana Madnawat categorically submitted that she does not want to prosecute the appellants. Even otherwise also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, in our opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. We, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution, deem it proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants emanating from the F.I.R. lodged under Section 498-A of I.P.C.” 12 In the result, the application succeeds and the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”. The proceeding in R.C.C. No.450 of 2009 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. at Ardhapur, Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. Criminal application is disposed of. *****