S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been preferred by petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated under Complaint Petition no. 669 of 2002 filed on 20th May, 2002 pending in the court of Sri Nasiruddin, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad u/s. 498A I.P.C.
(2.) ACCORDING to petitioner, his marriage was solemnized on 12th December, 1996 with O.P. no. 2, Smt. Rajeshree Parmar without any dowry. For the reasons best known to O.P. no. 2, she left the petitioner 's house with her father on 1st October, 2002. The petitioner had to file a Matrimonial Title Suit no. 24 of 2002 for decree of divorce against the O.P. no. 2 in the court of Family Court, Ranchi in which notices were sent. Subsequently, the O.P. No. 2 filed Complaint Petition no. 669 of 2002 against the petitioner only with intention to harass the petitioner for filing divorce petition against her. In para -19 of the complaint petition, she disclosed that it was not a case of demand of dowry but was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and O.P. no. 2. Therefore, according to petitioner, the dispute is of a civil nature. The criminal proceeding is not maintainable and it amounts to abuse of process of court. In the aforesaid background, the present petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred by petitioner to quash the proceeding. An affidavit has been filed by O.P. no. 2, wherein it is stated that during the pendency of the instant criminal miscellaneous petition, due to intervention of common friends and relatives, good sense having been prevailed upon the parties, the parties hereto have compromised the case outside the court and no such offence as alleged in the complaint petition is required to proceed against the petitioner furthermore. The O.P. no. 2, no longer intends to proceed with the prosecution and shall have no objection if the present criminal proceeding is quashed by this Court. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, he has accepted that due to intervention of common friends and relatives, good sense having been prevailed upon the parties, the parties hereto have compromised the case outside the court and the parties have also agreed to compromise all other cases pending between them before any court of law either civil or criminal and on this regard both the parties have filed joint petition before the Family Court, Ranchi for mutual divorce.
(3.) SIMILAR case fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of 'B.S. Joshi and others V/s. State of Haryana and another, 2003 4 SCC 675 : 2003 Cri.L.J. 2028. In that case, F.I.R. was lodged by wife u/ss. 498A/ 323 and 406 I.P.C. against her husband and his relatives. The husband filed a petition u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding. In the meantime, the husband and wife agreed to mutual divorce. The wife appeared before this Court and supported the prayer for quashing of the said proceeding, they having agreed to mutual divorce. The High Court refused to quash the entire proceeding on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non -compoundable offences. In the said case, the Supreme Court noticed that the husband or the wife had not sought compounding of the offences. They had approached the Court seeking quashing of F.I.R. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the powers u/s. 482 have no limits. Though it is necessary to exercise such power u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. with utmost care and caution but exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court further held "the object of introducing Chapter XX A containing Bulaki Ram Versus Jatru Mahali Section 498 -A in the Indian Penal Code 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. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against 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. That is not the object of Chapter XX -A of the Indian Penal Code." In the said case, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and quashed the F.I.R.;