Ramakant Panday v. State Of M.P.

Applicant/complainant Smt. Chhaya Panday is also present in person. She has been identified by Shri Ashish Sinha, Advocate.

Both the parties have filed this joint petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8923/2009 pending against applicants No. 1 to 5 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur under sections 498-A/34 & 506 I.P.C and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

In short, the facts of the case are that marriage between applicant Ramakant Panday and Smt. Chhaya Panday was performed on 16.5.2005 at Bhopal according to Hindu Customs. After marriage, due to difference of opinion and living style, since 14.8.2007 applicant No. 1 and complainant started living separately. Multiple disputes gave rise to different litigations under section 125 of Cr.P.C, matrimonial disputes and lodging of report by complainant against the applicants/accused. A case at Crime No. 22/2009 was registered by police station Garha, Jabalpur against the accused persons under sections 498-A & 506 I.P.C and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. Presently, the said case is at the stage of recording of evidence.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that on 6.11.2012, both the parties amicably settled their disputes out of Court and decided to live separately. Complainant Smt. Chhaya Panday agreed to receive lump sum amount of maintenance and to finish all the litigations pending against the applicants/accused persons. In pursuance of the out of Court settlement, an application under section 320 of Cr.P.C was filed by both the parties on 6.11.2012 in the Court of learned Magistrate, however, by order dated 17.1.2013, same was rejected in view of the fact that offences under section 498-A I.P.C and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were not compoundable.

Today, complainant Chhaya Panday, her husband and her father-in-law are present before this Court. They admit the fact of compromise. They submit that they have resolved the dispute by living separately. Husband and wife have moved a divorce petition with mutual consent. In lieu of maintenance, an amount of Rs. 3 lacs has been received by the complainant. Complainant Smt. Chhaya Panday admits the compromise and submits that she will get all the litigations closed once for all. She admits that this compromise has been entered into without any undue influence or coercion.

Learned counsel for the parties, in the above circumstances, placing reliance on the law laid down by the Apex Court in B.S Joshi v. State of Haryana - (2003) 4 SCC 675 pray that the criminal proceedings pending against the applicants/accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, be quashed. Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (supra) observed:

“The object of introducing Chapter XX-A in IPC was to prevent 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. A hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against the 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. This is not the object of Chapter XX-A of IPC.”

I am satisfied that compromise between both the parties is real and genuine. In view of the fact that offence under sections 498-A I.P.C and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable, the permission to compound the offence cannot be granted, but in view of the proposition laid down by the Apex Court, in the interest of parties to litigation, criminal proceedings of the case, can be quashed.

In view of the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate to exercise inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C and quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8923/2009 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur. Accordingly, the proceedings of aforesaid Criminal Case pending against applicants No. 1 Ramakant Panday, No. 2 Ramashankar Panday, No. 3 Smt. Keshkali Panday, No. 4 Smt. Santosh Panday and No. 5 Umesh Panday stand quashed.

Petition disposed of.