IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 269 of 2011 Saumya Badhani and others ……… Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……… Respondents. Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Nandan Arya, Assistant Government Advocate (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for respondent No. 1. Date of Order: 28.03.2011 BARIN GHOSH, CHIEF JUSTICE A First Information Report resulted in filing of a charge sheet under Sections 498 A, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report was lodged by the wife against the husband and his relatives. In course of investigation, it transpired that there is substance in the allegations made in the First Information Report against the applicants before this Court. The charge sheet accompanied the evidence that was collected in course of investigation. Being satisfied, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun has taken cognizance on the charge sheet and thereupon has issued summons to the applicants. 2. In the application it has been contended that subsequent to filing of the charge sheet and taking cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, husband and wife have compromised a divorce suit filed by the wife, whereby they have been divorced from each other. In the circumstances, applicants seek that in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, the Court will, taking note of the said compromise, quash the entire proceedings. 3. It is true that the provisions contained in Section 320 of the Code do not stand in the way of exercise of powers granted to this Court under Section 482 of the Code. But the question is, why the Court will use its powers under Section 482 of the Code and thereby give a goby to the statutory provision of Section 320 of the Code, to benefit whom, only the persons who litigated amongst themselves? I think, the Court would be 2 entitled to use its power under Section 482 only in public interest and in the interest of society. When it transpires to the Court that warring parties have settled their disputes and by virtue of such settlement, they have brought peace in the society, the Court may use such power and will do so, specially when the warring parties are husband and wife and they have decided to give up acrimony amongst them and to live in harmony together, which is conducive for prosperity of the society and is example setter. 4. In the instant case, after having had filed the First Information Report, wife had filed a divorce suit. That suit could only be decreed or could be dismissed. There was and is no provision to compromise the said suit. The Hindu Marriage Act does not authorizes the same to be done. On the other hand, the Hindu Marriage Act provides for special provision where compromise decree can be had by consent of both the parties. 5. Be that as it may, it is true that by reason of the decree for divorce, the husband and the wife would be living in peace, as they would not be required to interact with each other, socially or otherwise. The question is, for that reason, will the society be in peace? To my mind, No. The same would set an example for people to indulge in criminal activities, punishable under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thereupon to absolve themselves they would try to obtain a decree of divorce upon payment of permanent alimony, as has been agreed to be paid in the instant case. In other words, if what the applicants seek is permitted, the same would encourage resolution of crime against the society by paying blood money. That is neither the culture of the Indian society, nor the law applicable in India permits the same. Conversely, the same would encourage filing of false criminal case to coerce the opposite side to agree to a divorce. 6. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In the event, applicants seek bail, their application for grant of bail be decided in 3 accordance with law on the same day. The Magistrate is reminded that in a situation of this nature, a greater responsibility vests in him, in the sense if he finds, that the First Information Report and the evidence furnished in support thereof were untrue, to take sternest action against those who made the society to try a make belief offence. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.03.2011 Amit