Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.) THE applicants Gurdino Sundrani and Laxmi Sundrani have filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20107 of 2008 and the applicants Priyank Sundrani and Km. Resham Sundrani have filed the Criminal Misc. Application No. 27757 of 2008 with a prayer to quash the proceedings of criminal case No. 539 of 2007 under Section 498-A, IPC and Section 3/4, D.P. Act pending in the Court of learned Ill-Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly arising out of the charge-sheet submitted in case crime No. 2371 of 2006, P.S. Prem Nagar, District Bareilly. Both the applications are filed with the same prayer, therefore, both the applications are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Smt. Vineeta Sundrani, the wife of applicant Priyank Sundrani in case crime No. 2371 of 2006 under Section 498-A, IPC and Section 3/4, D.P. Act at P.S. Prem Nagar, District Bareilly on 6.12.2006 at 9.25A.M. alleging therein that the marriage of the O.P. No. 2 Smt. Vineeta Sundrani was performed with the applicant Priyank Sundrani on 5.10.2005, thereafter the demand of dowry was raised, to fulfill the same O.P. No. 2 was subjected to cruelty, consequently, she was expelled from the house of the applicant. After investigation the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet on which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants to face the trial. THE applicants moved the discharge application under Section 239, Cr.P.C., the same has been rejected by learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Bareilly on 26.3.2008. THE proceedings of the present case have been initiated on account of the matrimonial dispute, the same has been settled between the parties, the amount of Rs. Seven lacs have been given by the applicant Priyank Sundrani to O.P. No. 2 through the bank drafts No. 188989 dated 29.9.2008 and 822878 dated 30.8.2008. Both the parties have appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Delhi where they have settled their dispute on 19.8.2008. THE terms of the settlement have been followed by the applicants side because the amount of Rs. Seven lacs and fifty thousands has been paid through the bank drafts to O.P. No. 2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari and Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that in the present case O.P. No. 2 is wife of applicant Priyank Sundrani, they have decided to live separately and wants to lead their life according to their own choice independently. They have appeared before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and have entered into settlement agreement on 19.8.2008. In terms of that agreement the applicant Priyank Sundrani had paid the amount of Rs. Seven lacs and fifty thousand, the same is admitted by counsel for O.P. No. 2. In such circumstances the prosecution of the applicants shall not serve any purpose because O.P. No. 2, shall not support the prosecution story. Therefore, in view of the Apex Court judgment in case of B.S. Joshi the proceedings pending against the applicants may be quashed.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned AG.A. and Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 that O.P. No. 2 has entered into compromise, she does not want to proceed further against the applicants and she has received the amount of Rs. Seven lacs and fifty thousand through bank drafts, she has decided to live separately, therefore, the proceedings, pending against the applicants may be quashed. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, learned A. G. A., learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case O. P. No. 2 is wife of applicant Priyank Sundrani. On account of matrimonial dispute the proceedings of the present case have been initiated by O.P. No. 2. The applicant Priyank Sundrani have entered into compromise, they have decided to live separately. In terms of the compromise the applicant Priyank Sundrani has paid the amount of Rs. Seven lacs and fifty thousand through bank drafts to O.P. No. 2. The counsel for O.P. No. 2 has also filed a short counter affidavit in which they have clearly stated that they have entered into compromise on 19.8.2008 and O.P. No. 2 has received the amount of Rs. Seven lacs fifty thousands through demand notes and she is having no objection if the proceeding of above mentioned case are quashed. In such circumstances, the prosecution of the applicants shall not serve any purpose. If the proceedings are kept pending the future life of the applicant Priyank Sundrani and O.P. No. 2 may also be adversely affected. In such circumstances the Supreme Court has decided the case of B. S. Joshi and another v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, in which similar circumstances have been considered which read as under: "9. The High Court has also relied upon the decision in case of Surendra Nath Mohanty case for the proposition that offence declared to be non-compoundable cannot be compounded at all even with the permission of the Court. That is of course so. The offences which can be compounded are mentioned in Section 320. Those offences which are not mentioned therein cannot be permitted to be compounded. In Mohanty case the appellants were convicted by the trial Court for offence under Section 307. The High Court altered the conviction of the appellants and convicted them for offence under Section 326 and imposed sentence of six months. The trial Court had sentenced the appellants for a period of five years' Rl. The application for compounding was, however, dismissed by the High Court. This Court holding that the offence for which the appellants had been convicted was non-compoundable and, therefore, it could not be permitted to be compounded but considering that the parties had settled their dispute outside the Court, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. It is, however, to be borne in mind that in the present case the appellants had not sought compounding of the offences. They had approached the Court seeking quashing of FIR under the circumstances above stated. 10. In state of Karnataka v. L Muniswamy considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provisions which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved 'disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the "negative". It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on fact declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bonafides. 11 In Madhav Rao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, changes of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. 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 contest, in G. V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the Courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute 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 "case" is diferent Courts.";