Decided on March 29,2003

Chandra Kiran Choudhary Appellant


K. H. N. KURANGA, J. - (1.)The petitioners have in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prayed for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 234 of 1999 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners have stated in the petition as follows :--
"(1) The marriage of petitioner No. 1 Chandra Kiran with petitioner No. 2 Ajay was solemnised at Mahasamund on 15-2-1994. The couple were living happily and peacefully but at the instigation of her parents and with a view to get her husband separated from the joint family she lodged FIR on 12-1-1996 with Mahasamund Police alleging commission of offences under Sections 498A and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (2) That, the petitioner No. 4 Anand Ram is the father-in-law and petitioner No. 3 Sushila Choudhary is the mother-in-law of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 5 Smt. Lekha Hirvani is the Nanad (sister-in-law.) of petitioner No. 1. (3) The present petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is being preferred because of subsequent development inasmuch as in the course of proceedings petitioner No. 1 who is the wife/prosecutrix and the petitioner No. 2 who is husband and one of the accused has compromised before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur in Civil Revision No. 608 of 1998, which in turn arose out of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, the parties agreed to start a new life and to live together. Since thereafter, i.e., from 25-1-2000 onwards petitioner No. 1 is living in her matrimonial home in an absolutely peaceful and happy manner. She has visited her parental house twice during this period. A copy of the order dated 25-1-2000 passed in Civil Revision No. 608 of 1998 is filed herewith as Annexure P-1. (4) That, in the course of trial statement of petitioner No. 1 has been recorded before the Trial Court on 17-12-1999 vide Annexure P-2. The order in civil revision was passed about a month after recording her evidence. On that day her cross-examination was not complete which was recorded subsequently on 21-7-2000 vide Annexure P-3. In this statement she has categorically admitted that even during the pendency of criminal case the parties were in talking terms and either directly or through mediators and negotiation for finding a solution acceptable to both the parties was going on. She further admits that in the course of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act her husband has offered her to accompany him for living together and that the Trial Court had also directed her to go along with her husband. In Para 25 she has stated in categorical terms that after passing of the order (Annexure P-1) in the High Court she is residing with her husband in the matrimonial house that no cruelty/assault/demand of dowry is being made from her and that her marital life is going on smoothly. (5) That, after recording of the remaining cross-examination of the prosecutrix vide Annexure P-3 an application was moved by the accused persons as well as by the petitioner No. 1/prosecutrix vide Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively for dropping the proceeding and withdrawal from the prosecution. Along with the application of petitioner No. 1 her affidavit was also submitted vide Annexure P-6. In the application (Annexure P- 5) and affidavit (Annexure P-6) she has stated in no uncertain terms that there is no subsisting ill-will between her and the accused persons and she is leading a happy and peaceful marital life and that the earlier report was filed because of misunderstanding and confusion. She further states that the stability in her life should be allowed to prevail and therefore she is not willing to proceed any further in the matter. (6) That, the learned Trial Court without properly appreciating the legal impact of the applications and affidavit has rejected the application (Annexure P-7) by order dated 30-1-2001 and refused to drop the proceedings and at the same time has observed that since the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is not compoundable and the witnesses have deposed against the accused persons and also that similar application was earlier rejected, the application could not be allowed. It is respectfully submitted that the learned Trial Court has not properly exercised the jurisdiction and going by the tenor of the order the petitioners apprehend that in spite of the husband and the wife living together and she having condoned the cruelty, if any, alleged in the charge-sheet, the petitioners may suffer an adverse order which shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. (7) That, in view of the consistent stand of the prosecutrix/ petitioner No. 1 and her willingness to provide stability to her marital life, the learned Trial Court ought to have dropped the proceedings that in any case the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. (8) The petitioners respectfully submit that mere technicalities and niceties of legal procedure may not be allowed to thwart the cause of substantial justice. In the present case, the continuation of proceedings may cause irreparable harm to the petitioners and though it may appear to cause harm to petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 only but in essence it shall cause substantial injury to petitioner No. 1 who is the informant/wife of accused No. 2/petitioner No. 2. (9) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 234 of 1999 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deserve to be quashed."

(2.)In support of this petition the affidavit of Ajay Kumar son of Anand Ram Choudhary petitioner No. 2, i.e., the husband of petitioner No. 1 Chandrakiran Choudhary has been filed.
(3.)On 28-4-2003 two affidavits namely of Chandrakiran Choudhary petitioner No. 1 and Ajay Kumar Choudhary petitioner No. 2, husband of petitioner No. 1 have been filed. Certain documents have also been produced.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.