1 Criminal Writ Petition No.1198 of 2010 with Cri.Appl.No.4354 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1198 OF 2010 1. Digambar S/o.Shankar Puri, Age-75 years, Occu-Nil, R/o.Yelki, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli, 2. Vatchalabai W/o.Digambar Puri, Age-70 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Yelki, Tal.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli, 3. Parmeshwar S/o.Digambar Puri, Age-37 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Yelki, Tal.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli, 4. Jyoti W/o.Parmeshwar Puri, Age-32 years, Occu-Household, R/o.High Court Colony, Beed-by-pass road, Aurangabad, 5. Rukhminbai W/o.Gangadhar Puri, Age-50 years, Occu-Household, R/o.58, Rajdhani Colony, New Satara Parisar, Beed-by-pass road, Aurangabad 6. Gangadhar S/o.Avadhut Puri, Age-55 years, Occu-Service, R/o.58, Rajdhani Colony, New Satara Parisar, Beed-by-pass road, Aurangabad 7. Ashish S/o.Gangadhar Puri, Age-23 years, Occu-Service, 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.1198 of 2010 with Cri.Appl.No.4354 of 2011 R/o.58, Rajdhani Colony, New Satara Parisar, Beed-by-pass road, Aurangabad 8. Jyotsana D/o. Shankar Puri, Age-19 years, Occu-Student, R/o.Garkheda, Aurangabad, 9. Manohar S/o.Digambar Puri, Age-38 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Garkheda, Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Ujwala W/o.Manohar Puri, Age-35 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Gajanan Colony, Galli No.3, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4354 OF 2011 1. Digambar S/o.Shankar Puri, Age-75 years, Occu-Nil, R/o.Yelki, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli, 2. Vatchalabai W/o.Digambar Puri, Age-70 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Yelki, Tal.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli, 3. Parmeshwar S/o.Digambar Puri, Age-37 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Yelki, Tal.Kalamnuri, 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.1198 of 2010 with Cri.Appl.No.4354 of 2011 Dist.Hingoli, 4. Jyoti W/o.Parmeshwar Puri, Age-32 years, Occu-Household, R/o.High Court Colony, Beed-by-pass road, Aurangabad, 5. Rukhminbai W/o.Gangadhar Puri, Age-50 years, Occu-Household, R/o.58, Rajdhani Colony, New Satara Parisar, Beed-by-pass road, Aurangabad 6. Gangadhar S/o.Avadhut Puri, Age-55 years, Occu-Service, R/o.58, Rajdhani Colony, New Satara Parisar, Beed-by-pass road, Aurangabad 7. Ashish S/o.Gangadhar Puri, Age-23 years, Occu-Service, R/o.58, Rajdhani Colony, New Satara Parisar, Beed-by-pass road, Aurangabad 8. Jyotsana D/o. Shankar Puri, Age-19 years, Occu-Student, R/o.Garkheda, Aurangabad, 9. Manohar S/o.Digambar Puri, Age-38 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Garkheda, Aurangabad APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Ujwala W/o.Manohar Puri, Age-35 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Gajanan Colony, Galli No.3, 4 Criminal Writ Petition No.1198 of 2010 with Cri.Appl.No.4354 of 2011 Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS Mr.V.S.Kadam h/f. Mr.V.R.Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants in both matters. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State in both matters. Mr.N.V.Gaware h/f. Ms.Ranjana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no.2. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 10/10/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Criminal Writ Petition No.1198/2010 is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of The Cr.P.C., directed against the CR No.305/2010, registered in Bhagyanagar Police Station by respondent no.2 on 08/11/2010 for an offence punishable u/s. 498-A, 323, 504,506 r/w. 34 of The IPC. During pendancy of this application, the parties have amicably settled the dispute out of Court and now it is informed that the respondent no.2/the wife has started co-habiting with her husband petitioner no.9 and now as the dispute is resolved, she intends to withdraw the complaint. As the offence punishable u/s. 498-A of the IPC is not compoundable, separate application no.4354/2011 is filed before this Court, seeking 5 Criminal Writ Petition No.1198 of 2010 with Cri.Appl.No.4354 of 2011 leave to allow the parties to settle the dispute. 3. It is not under dispute that the respondent no.2 is the wife of petitioner no.9 and got married in the year 1996. Petitioner no.1 to 8 are the relatives of petitioner no.9. Out of these petitioners, petitioner no.1, petitioner no.6 and petitioner no.7 are in government service. There was some family dispute in between respondent no.2 and petitioner no.9 and their relatives. Due to that dispute, quarrel took place between respondent no.2 and the petitioner no.9 on 06/09/2010. Since then, she left her matrimonial house and went to reside with her parents. It appears that further the complaint was lodged on 08/11/2010 with Bhagyanagar Police Station, which was registered vide CR No.305/2010, against these petitioners. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and numbered as RCC No.1005/2010 and is pending on the file of 10th J.M.F.C. Nanded. 4. Even though the parties have settled the dispute outside the court, section 498A is not compoundable within the meaning of section 320(1)(2) of The Cr.P.C. Thus there is hurdle to file the compromise pursis before the Court to withdraw the complaint. Considering the fact that the nature of dispute between the parties is matrimonial, in the interest of the respondent no.2 and petitioner no. 9, it is necessary to allow the parties to settle the dispute. Petitioner no.9 and respondent no.2 are present before the Court, and are 6 Criminal Writ Petition No.1198 of 2010 with Cri.Appl.No.4354 of 2011 identified by their respective counsels. 5. 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 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. 6. So far as facts of the matter before the Apex Court is 7 Criminal Writ Petition No.1198 of 2010 with Cri.Appl.No.4354 of 2011 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. 7. 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.1005/2010. 8. If the parties are settling their dispute out of court to maintain harmony, for the welfare of their relationship, this Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C., allowed the parties to compound the offence. 9. In the result, writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause 8 Criminal Writ Petition No.1198 of 2010 with Cri.Appl.No.4354 of 2011 ‘B’. FIR CR No.305/2010, registered in Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded and criminal case RCC No.1005/2010 on the file of 10th J.M.F.C. Nanded are hereby quashed and set aside. So also in Criminal Appl.No.4354/2011, parties are allowed to settle the dispute in terms of prayer clause ‘A’. Criminal Writ Petition and criminal application stand disposed of accordingly. 10. Rule thus made absolute. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/OCT.2011/cri.w.p.1198-10