Hon'ble Dharam Veer, J.
By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 17.11.2006 as well as the entire the proceedings of in Criminal Case No. 805/2006 State v. Akil Ahmad under Section 498A & 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital.
Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 Smt. Sabeena Begam filed a complaint against the petitioners and other co-accused before the Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani with the averments that she was married to petitioner no. 1 Akil Ahmad on 4.10.2002 as per Muslim rites and her father had spent about three lakhs rupees in the marriage. But soon after the marriage, the petitioners and the other co-accused started harassing her for dowry and they also committed marpit with her on many occasions. They demanded Rs. 50,000/- and threatened for life in case of non-fulfillment of the said demand. She also gave birth to a female child on 8.6.2004 and thereafter the petitioners and other co-accused increased the harassment. On 8.7.2006, petitioner no. 2 left the victim at her maternal house and ever since then she has been living there and the petitioners and the other co-accused are threatening her family members for the dowry. She has earlier approached to the police but no action was taken. Consequent upon the said complaint, JM, Haldwani directed the police station to lodge the FIR. Thereafter an FIR was lodged against the petitioners and the other co-accused under Section 498A, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation police submitted the chargesheet against the present petitioners, on the basis of which learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani issued the summoning order dated 17.11.2006 against the petitioners.
Parties have filed compounding application stating that they have entered into compromise and sought permission of this Court that their compromise may be accepted and compounding application may be allowed as the petitioner no. 1 and complainant/respondent no. 2 are husband and wife and petitioner no. 2 is the father-in-law of the respondent no. 2 and now they are living peacefully and the matter has been settled amicably between them. Compounding application is signed by all the parties and duly supported by the affidavits of petitioner no. 2 as well as the complainant/respondent no. 2 and duly verified by their respective Counsel.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC P675, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 12 and 13 held 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 v. L.H.V Prasad [(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 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.”
Reliance has also been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal reported in 2005 SCC (Cri.) 719, wherein at para 5, 6 & 9 it has been held as udner: -
“5. In the compromise petition, referred to herein above, both the parties had agreed to withdraw all the civil and criminal cases filed by each against the other. It is pursuant to this compromise, the above divorce as sought for by the appellant was granted by the husband and pursuant to the said compromise deed the appellant also withdrew Criminal Case No. 63 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Nainital which was a complaint filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance. It is on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the appellant and on the basis of the terms of the compromise, said case came to be dismissed. However, so far as the complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, which is the subject matter of this appeal, the appellant did not take any steps to withdraw the same. It is in those circumstances, a quashing petition was filed before the High Court which came to be partially allowed on the ground of the territorial jurisdiction, against the said order the appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. From the above-narrated facts, it is clear that in the compromise petition filed before the Family Court, the appellant admitted that she has received Stridhan and maintenance in lump sum and that she will not be entitled to maintenance of any kind in future. She also undertook to withdraw all proceedings civil and criminal filed and initiated by her against the respondents within one month of the compromise deed which included the complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act from which complaint this appeal arises. In the said compromise, the respondent-husband agreed to withdraw his petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Senior Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and also agreed to give a consent divorce as sought for by the appellant.
9. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do complete justice, we should while dismissing this appeal also quash proceedings arising from the Criminal Case No. Cr. No. 224/2003 registered in Police Station, Bilaspur, (Distt. Rampur) filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is disposed of.”
In view of the above legal proposition propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the compounding application is allowed and the compromise entered into by the parties is accepted.
Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani in Criminal Case No. 805 of 2006 State v. Akil Ahmad under Section 498A, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Interim order dated 23.2.2007 stands vacated.
Comments