Allowed

Chandrabhagabai Wishvnath Nighut v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Aug 2011APPLN/3174/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed Sessions proceedings against a husband for IPC offences including attempted murder and cruelty against his wife. Relying on Section 482 CrPC, the court held that exercising inherent powers to quash proceedings was justified due to a genuine settlement between the parties and the ends of justice in a matrimonial dispute.

What did the court decide?

Sessions Case No. 278/2010 is quashed and set aside subject to payment of Rs. 1000/- costs by each party to the HCLSC.

Chandrabhagabai Wishvnath Nighut Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Criminal Application No. 3174 of 2011

¶4

Sau. Chandrabhagabai w/o. Wishvnath Nighut, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. "Nigut Mala", Wadzire Area, Taluka : Parner, District : Ahmednagar.

¶5

.. Petitioner.

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra.

¶8

Wishvnath s/o. Shripati Nigut, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. "Nigut Mala", Wadzire Area, Taluka : Parner, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents.

¶9

Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶10

Mr. D.R. Korde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.1.

¶11

Mr. K.J. Tandale, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶12

(2)

¶13

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.

¶14

DATE : 8TH AUGUST 2011

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶16

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

Learned Adv. Mr. K.J. Tandale has filed Vakalatnama for respondent no.2, and the same is taken on record. Moreover, respondent no.2 has filed affidavit in reply, and the same is taken on record.

¶18

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶19

Learned APP Mr. D.R. Korde accepts notice upon Rule for respondent no.1, and learned Adv. Mr. K.J. Tandale accepts notice upon Rule for respondent no.2.

¶20

Present application has been filed by the applicant (original complainant), wife of respondent no.2, under Section 482 and 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying that Sessions Case No. 278/2010, pending before learned 6th

¶21

(3)

¶22

District & Sessions Judge at Ahmednagar, pertaining to Crime No. I-230/2010, registered at Police Station, Parner (District : Ahmednagar), for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside in view of the compromise taken place between the applicant and respondent no.2.

¶23

The applicant and respondent no.2 are wife and husband of each other whose marriage was solemnized about 25 years back. It is alleged that the respondent no.2 always used to consume liquor, abuse, threaten and assault the applicant. On 21-10-2010, at about 20.00 hours, respondent no.2 consumed liquor and abused the applicant and allegedly poured kerosene on the person of the applicant and thrown matchbox and told her to set fire, otherwise he would lit her with matchstick and ablaze her. Accordingly, due to fear, she set herself on fire by lighting matchstick out of matchbox thrown by respondent no.2 towards her. Thereafter, the applicant was admitted in Sonar Hospital at Ahmednagar. Subsequently, her statement was recorded by Head Constable belonging to Kotwali Police Station and Head Constable belonging to Parner Police Station, on 22-10-2010 and 23-10-2010, respectively, in Sonar Hospital at Ahmednagar. Accordingly, Parner Police Station registered an offence against respondent no.2 under C.R. No. I-230/2010, for the offences

¶24

(4)

¶25

punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

¶26

Accordingly, criminal law was set in motion and investigation was carried out and charge sheet has been filed by the investigating agency before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Parner, against respondent no.2 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Parner, committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, since offence under Section 307 of IPC was exclusively by the Court of Sessions and same was numbered as Sessions Case No. 278/2010, and the same is pending before 6th District & Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. Moreover, charge has also been framed against respondent no.2, and the matter is at the stage of recording of evidence on 9th August 2011.

¶27

On the aforesaid background, the applicant submits that the applicant and respondent no.2 are residing together since 13-12-2010 and respondent no.2 is well maintaining her. It is also submitted that out of said wedlock, three children are born and the applicant and respondent no.2 are residing together along three children. The applicant also states that now, the respondent no.2 is neither consuming liquor nor harassing the applicant and

¶28

(5)

¶29

he is serving in Parner Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Devi Bhoyre (Taluka : Parner, District : Ahmednagar). Hence, the applicant is desirous to forgive the respondent no.2. Considering the fact that she has no source of income, and considering the fact that she intends to lead future marital life smoothly with the respondent no.2, and also considering the fact that the settlement / compromise has been taken place between them without any consideration, the applicant also contends that if the present Sessions Case is continued and if the respondent no.2 is punished, ultimately, it would affect the children of the applicant and respondent no.2, and therefore, applicant has come to the conclusion and filed present application for quashing the proceedings pending before learned Sessions Court, as mentioned above.

¶30

The present applicant also recites that if the proceedings pending before the learned Sessions Court, arising out of matrimonial dispute between the applicant and respondent no.2, are continued, and if the applicant is convicted thereunder, ultimately, the applicant and her children would be sufferers. Hence, it is submitted that having broader perspective, the applicant and respondent no.2 have arrived at a conclusion to compromise the dispute outside the court, and respondent no.2 has assured that he would treat the applicant and their children

¶31

(6)

¶32

happily and he would give love in her future life. The applicant also states that she is not going to claim compensation from respondent no.2, if the proceeding pending against respondent no.2 is quashed.

¶33

The applicant further submits that the applicant wants to lead further marital life with respondent no.2 since the respondent no.2 has changed his attitude and behaviour with the applicant. Hence, the applicant has prayed that the proceedings against respondent no.2, filed at her instance, be quashed and set aside by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶34

The respondent no.2 has filed affidavit in reply and stated that considering the future career of the applicant and the respondent no.2, they have settled the matter outside the court, and also considering the future marital life and career of their children, it was very necessary to compromise the matter, and hence, the applicant is desirous to forgive respondent no.2. It is also stated that the compromise has taken place between applicant and respondent no.2 without any consideration. The respondent no.2 also further states that when the applicant was taking the fire lamp from the hook in the wall, it was fallen on her person and caught fire and thereafter respondent no.2 and

¶35

(7)

¶36

other relatives brought her to hospital and looked after her and took care about her, and she is recovered from the incident and since 13-12-2010, the applicant and respondent no.2 are residing together along with the children happily.

¶37

The respondent no.2 has also stated that he is serving with Parner Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana and he gave undertaking by filing the affidavit in reply that he would not consume liquor in future or would not harass, would not abuse and would not illtreat the applicant in future and wants to enjoy remaining life peacefully. He has further stated that the compromise has been taken place between the applicant and respondent no.2 without any influence, and hence, prayed that in view of the said compromise, proceedings in Sessions Case No. 278/2010 pending before 6th District & Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, be quashed and set aside.

¶38

It is also submission of the applicant and respondent no.2, that various judgments of this Court and also of Hon. Apex Court which can be relied upon in support of their contention. It is further case of the applicant and respondent no.2, that although offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is not compoundable as per Section 320 of Cr.P.C., however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has power

¶39

(8)

¶40

to quash the proceedings and that power envisaged under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. is limited, but the powers of this Court envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not limited to quash the proceedings, that too arising out of matrimonial proceedings. It is further case of the applicant, that the applicant does not want that the respondent no.2 be punished and the proceedings filed against respondent no.2 could be continued. The applicant further does not want to resile from her previous version but in given circumstances, forgive respondent no.2 for the acts committed by him and continue her matrimonial life smoothly. Hence, the applicant has prayed to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending before learned Sessions Court.

¶41

It is further case of the applicant, that as per provision of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., learned Additional Sessions Judge at Ahmednagar, is not empowered to allow the applicant to compound the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, and hence, the applicant has preferred the present application requesting to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶42

Today, the applicant i.e. wife and respondent no.2 i.e. husband are present before the Court, and the applicant has

¶43

(9)

¶44

admitted the contents of the petition and her thumb impression thereon, as well as, respondent no.2 has admitted contents of the affidavit in reply filed by him and his signature thereon. Moreover, both the applicant and respondent no.2 have filed the deed of compromise along with the present application at Exhibit "B" and both of them admitted the contents thereof, and the applicant has admitted her thumb impression thereon and respondent no.2 has admitted his signature thereon.

¶45

I have carefully perused the contents of the present application and the contents of the deed of compromise dated 20-7-2011 annexed with the present application at Exhibit "B", and also perused the contents of the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent no.2, and other relevant documents, such as, affidavit filed by the applicant, dated 13-12-2010, copy thereof is produced at Exhibit "C", and various judgments of this Court, as well as, Hon. Apex Court, and I am of the considered view that the present application deserves to be allowed since compromise has taken place between the parties in the matrimonial discord. It is true that the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is non-compoundable as per provision of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. However, present application can be considered and entertained by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to achieve the settlement in matrimonial dispute and to meet the

¶46

(10)

¶47

ends of justice.

¶48

Learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Anjusingh Pramodsingh Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra & another , reported at 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 763 , relying on the judgment of Hon. Apex Court, in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Harayana and another , reported at 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 , has observed thus :

¶49

" 21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Harayana and another , reported in 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 held as under :-

¶50

" Criminal P.C., Ss. 482, 320 - Inherent powers - Quashing of proceedings, F.I.R. or complaint - Section 320 would not be a bar to exercise of power of quashing - Whether to exercise or not such a power would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.

¶51

Criminal P.C. S. 482 - Powers of Court - Matrimonial offences - It is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. "

¶52

In another case of Mansur A. Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1911 , this Court held as under :-

¶53

" Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

¶54

(11)

¶55

(Prevention of Atrocities Act (1989), S.3(1)(x) - Criminal P.C., Ss. 482, 320 - Compounding of offences - Inherent powers of Court - Complaint under S. 3(1)(x) of Atrocities Act - Settlement between accused and complainant - Offence though non-compoundable, Court under S.482 of Criminal Procedure Code can permit the parties to compound the noncompoundable offence, when it is satisfied that settlement is bonafide and free from pressure and force. "

¶56

In another case of Swati w/o. Pradeep Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1743 this Court held that :-

¶57

" Criminal P.C., Ss.482, 320 - Penal Code, Ss. 498-A, 420, 494, 495 and section 506 (B) - Amicable settlement of disputes between the parties - No purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings initiated by the wife when she herself is not interested in prosecuting the said proceedings - Criminal Proceedings quashed. "

¶58

This Court in the case of Mr. Jitendra S. Bhadoria and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 898 held as under :-

¶59

"Criminal P.C., Ss. 320, 482 - Quashing of Proceedings - Compounding of offence u/s. 320 - Cruelty to wife - Section 320 of Criminal P.C. does not limit or affect the power of the High Court u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. - Section 320 would not be a bar to exercise a

¶60

(12)

¶61

power of quashing. Penal Code (1860), Section 498-A, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 (S.C.) - relied on."

¶62

22. The full Bench of this Court in the case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another , reported in 2008(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 584 : [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 952 (F.B.)] held that the powers under section 482 of the Code are not limited or affected by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code. It is further held that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code include powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, pending upon the facts of a given case. The powers under section 482 are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code including section 320 of the Code. The Court could exercise this power in offences of any kind, whether compoundable or non-compoundable. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution and in conformity with the precepts indicated in paragraph 7.10 of this judgment. This Court further observed that the powers to compound can be exercised at the trial stage or even at the appellate stage subject to satisfaction of the conditions postulated by the legislature under section 320 of the Code.

¶63

(13)

¶64

The Full Bench in above referred judgment in para 6.13 has observed that the powers of compounding is strictly regulated by statutory powers while the inherent powers of the Court are guided by judicial pronouncements within the scope of section 482 of the Code. Another very important facet of criminal jurisprudence which as developed in the present time is with regard to the impact of compounding and/or quashing criminal proceedings in relation to an offence, its impact on the victim, witnesses and the society at large. This must be treated as a relevant consideration.

¶65

In above referred judgment, in para No.5.14 the Full Bench has observed that when the Court has to consider whether the criminal Proceedings should be allowed to continue or the same should be quashed, two aspects are to be satisfied (i) whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish the offence, and (ii) whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue."

¶66

In the present case, the proceeding in Sessions Case No. 278/2010 is pending before learned 6th District & Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The original complainant i.e. applicant herein is wife of respondent no.2. By the present application, the applicant / complainant has stated that she and respondent no.2 have settled their disputes and considering her future, and the future of her children, she has decided that she would not proceed with the complaint filed by her. Moreover, the applicant and

¶67

(14)

¶68

respondent no.2 have filed the deed of compromise arrived between them dated 20th July 2011, at Exhibit "B" and the same is self-explicit. Moreover, the applicant and respondent no.2 have been residing together since 13-12-2010 and along with their children and they have decided to stay together and forgive each other and to lead remaining life together.

¶69

In these circumstances, the prosecution which is pending against respondent no.2 would be futile, as in all probability, there would be no evidence to prove offences alleged against respondent no.2 herein since the applicant i.e. original complainant has no grievance against him.

¶70

In view of the aforesaid position, I am of the view that no purpose would be served in prosecuting Sessions Case No. 278/2010 furthermore, pending before the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar.

¶71

The Hon. Apex Court, in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul, etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & another , reported at 2008 ALL SCR 2111 , in para 10 of the judgment, has observed thus :

¶72

" We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The parties have compromised and the

¶73

(15)

¶74

complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat categorically submitted that she does not want to prosecute the appellants. Even otherwise also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, in our opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. We, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution, deem it proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants emanating from the FIR lodged under section 498-A, IPC. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. "

¶75

In view of the pronouncement by the Full Bench of this Court, relying on the various Supreme Court's Judgments, I have no hesitation to proceed on footings that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code include the powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it.

¶76

Accordingly, following the pursuit as laid down by the Hon. Apex Court, and more particularly, considering that the settlement has been taken place between the parties in respect of dispute arising out of matrimonial discord, interest of justice requires that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be invoked and proceeding in pending Sessions Case against the respondent no.2 be quashed and set

¶77

(16)

¶78

aside.

¶79

In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "C" thereof, and proceeding in Sessions Case No. 278/2010, pending before learned 6th District & Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, arising out of Crime No. I-230/2010, registered at Police Station, Parner (District : Ahmednagar), for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1000/- by the applicant, and Rs. 1000/- by respondent no.2 to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee at Aurangabad, within four weeks.

¶80

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶81

Office to inform the concerned Sessions Court accordingly.

¶82

( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE

¶83

bgp/ka3174

Chandrabhagabai Wishvnath Nighut v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabhagabai Wishvnath Nighut v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mohamad Yousuf Mohamad Habib

Prakash Bhagwat @ Bhaskar Borhade Vs the State of Mahrashtra

The Aurangabad Peoples Co. Op Bank Ltd. Aurangabad through Authorised Officer Vs Ramkumar Kisanlal Dongre

Ramdas Dashrath Ransing Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Namdeo Dhondiba Palve Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Dayanand Shivmurti Birajdar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.