Decided on December 03,2010



S.P.Wangdi - (1.) THIS is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. whereby the petitioners have sought to quash FIR No.23/2010 under Sections 406/420/498A/120B I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, under P.S. Singtam, East Sikkim and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner No 1 and the respondent No.2 were married on 21.7.2007 after which they lived in their marital home at Sakti Nagar, Delhi. However, after sometime severe marital discord erupted between the two resulting in them separating on 6.3.2009 and the respondent No.2 returning to her parental home at Singtam, East Sikkim. THEy have since been living separately. As expected various proceedings, both criminal and civil, were filed one against the other the details of which we may not go into as being irrelevant for the purpose of disposal of the present proceeding. Suffice it to say that one of such case against the petitioners is FIR No.23/ 2010 under Sections 406/420/498A/120-B l.P.C and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered by Singtam. P.S., East Sikkim. The parties appear to have ultimately arrived at a mutual settlement of the matter in terms of which it had been agreed by and between them that apart from making certain payments to respondent No.2, cases filed against each other would be withdrawn. As it appears from the records, the parties did act upon the Memorandum of. Understanding. (MoU) dated 25.7.2010 partially till such time the present proceedings were instituted by the petitioners. The present petition has been instituted on the sole ground of the marital dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 having been settled mutually on the basis of the said MoU. When the matter was moved on 12.10.2010, this Court, having been satisfied that a prima facie case have been made out by the petitioners, directed the State respondent not to give further effect to the FIR. On 11.11.2010, however, the respondent No.2 contested the version of the petitioners and submitted that she had agreed to enter into the MoU under compelling circumstances thereby completely transforming the dimension of the present proceedings. Being conscious of the circumstances under which jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in matrimonial matters and, also keeping in view the oft repeated view of the Apex Court that considering the special features in matrimonial matters, it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of such disputes, this Court granted parties an opportunity to explore further possibilities for arriving at an amicable settlement of the matter.
(3.) AS directed, the parties have submitted their respective reports facts of which need not be referred to as they stand admitted by them. But on the essential aspect there is a conflict. While the counsel for the petitioners seek further time for settlement, it is pleaded on behalf of the respondent No.2 that as an amicable solution does not appear to be a possibility, the matter be heard and disposed off. Mrs. Menuka Gurung, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners fervently prayed for adjournment of the matter on the ground of the senior counsel conducting the matter not being available today. This Court would have been inclined to grant such prayer under normal circumstances, but for the reasons aforesaid and today being the last working day before the long winter vacation, it is of the view that no useful purpose will be served in granting further time. The prayer is accordingly rejected and the matter taken up for hearing.;

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