Criminal Writ Petition No.530 of 2004

22nd March, 2004

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. S. G. SAJNANI, Ms. ARATI SATHE
Respondent Counsel: Ms. MANISHA PANT, M/s. Bhave & Co., Mr. B. H. MEHTA

Cases Cited:
B. S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 (S.C.) [Para 4]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and the learned Addl.P.P. for the State. Rule. The learned Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing.

2. This is a petition filed by the Petitioner-husband seeking to quash the criminal proceedings filed against him under the Criminal Case No.102/P/2003 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai. In the aforesaid Criminal Case, the Petitioner has been charged with the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. It appears that the Respondent No.1-wife had filed the matrimonial Petition for divorce being M.J. Petition No.A 1010 of 2002 before the 7th Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai. In the said proceedings, it appears that the parties have amicably settled the matter and have agreed for the divorce by a mutual consent. In view thereof, the learned Judge of the 7th Family Court, Mumbai by an order dated 18th March, 2004 has already dissolved the marriage between the parties which was solemnised on 11th December, 1999, by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The parties have also filed the consent terms before the Family Court which also forms the part of the said decree.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has contended that as the Respondent No.1 on her own is not able to compound the aforesaid Criminal Case No.102/P/2003 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, the only way is that the said proceedings will have to be quashed. In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has brought to our notice the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 (S.C.) wherein Paragraph Nos.12, 13, 14 and 15 are relevant. The said paragraphs read as under :-

"12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes."

"13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G. V. Rao Vs. 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 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 counselled and brought about reproachment 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 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A 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 the Code."

Therefore, from the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is very clear that when the parties mutually resolve the matrimonial dispute it would be unjust to allow the criminal prosecution to continue.

5. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, specially for the reasons stated in the above referred Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, Rule is made absolute in the present petition in terms of prayer clause (a).

6. Personal Secretary to issue an authenticated copy of this order to the parties.

Petition allowed.