Allowed

Shiv Kumar Nirmalkar and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jan 2011CRMP/910/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners for offences under Section 498-A IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement with the respondent wife. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in B.S. Joshi.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg was quashed. Petitioners were acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A/34 IPC.

Shiv Kumar Nirmalkar and Ors. Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

Cr.M.P.No.SIOofZOIO

¶3

V- ^

¶4

Petitioners 1. Shiv Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Santu Ram,
^ed about 29 years,
2. SantuRam, S/o LateRamadhin,' Aged
about 54 years,
3. Smt. Durgi Bai, W/o Santuram Aged
aboutSOyears,
4. Gopichandra, S/o Santuram fi^ed about
^
20years, ,
All are residents of Viliage: Potiya,
Nandanl Mines, PS: Nanc|inj,Dt^:.DUrg
(CG)
5. Smt.Rameshwari W/o Gulab Nirmaikar
(Nlrmal) aged about 26 yeare, R/o
Station BaUa, Ttiarta-Lalt^>
Distt.Rqnandgaon (CG)
Vs
Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through District
Magistrate, District Duig (CG)
2. Smt.Minakshi Nlrmaikar, W/'o Shiv
Kumar Ntrmatlcar, Aged ahout 23 yaars;
Rlo Village Potlya, Nandini Mines, PS
Nandani, Distt.Durg(CG) ,

¶5

(Petition under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C.)

¶6

(SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.)

"^x.1

Present: Mrs.Fouzia Mlrza, counsel for the petitloners. Mr.Rakesh Kumar Jha, Dy.Govt.Advccate for respondent No.l/State. Mr.Ramakant Vsnna, counsel for respondent No.2.

¶11

PetitionersShiv Kumar Nirmalkar, Santu Ram, Smt.Durgi Bai, Gopichandra and Smt.Rameshwari & respondent No.2 Smt.MtnaksN Nirmalkarare present in person beforethe Court.

¶12

¶13

. ORDER

¶14

(Passed on 10"' Jlanuary, 2011)

¶15

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.Cfor quashmentof Crimlnal Case No.1084/2010 pending befors the Judiciai Magistrate First Class, Durg for the offencepunishableunder Section 488-A/34 ofthe Indian Penai Code.

—^

<-'

^—.

c V.-

Leamed counsel appearing for the petltionerssubmiis that alfhough offence is not compoundable, but in the light ofthe dictum in the case of

¶23

B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another1, the proceedings before the court below be quashed. Learned sounsel placing reiiance upon the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi (supra) submits that though in accordancewith ttse provisions

¶24

' OfSection 320 ofthe Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 4Q8-A ofthe Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable In nature yet the criminal proceedings initiated forthe offence punlshable underthis section can be quashed by exercising jurisdlction under Section 482 of the Gr.P.C. The relevant portion ofthe said judgmentis extracted below:-

¶25

There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chatrter !

¶26

XX-A containing Section 498-A. in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relative^ of her husband. Sectlon ^ 8-A was added;with a ;

¶27

view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her reiatlve to satisfy untawful demands ofdowry. The hypertechnlcat view wouki be counterproductive and would act ^ainst interests of

¶28

women and against the object forwhich this provislon was added. There is every likelihood that non-©<ercise of inber^fcpower to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justjce would prevent women from settling eariier. That is not the objeet of Chapter XX-A ofthe Indian Penal eode 15. In view ofthe above discusslon, we hoid that the High Court in exercise of itsinherent powers can quash criminal

¶29

" proceedings or FiR or complalnt and Sectlon 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Sectlon 482

¶30

< of the Code.

¶31

Thus according to the above cited decisfon of the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the Court to encourage genulne settlements of matrimonial disputes and the provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. do not limit or affectthe powers under Section 482ofthe Cr.P.C.

¶32

I have perused Registry report.

¶33

¶34

1. tn view,of the aforementioned pronouncement of the Supreme Court' and < . . ;1:

¶35

the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2 Smt.Minakshl Nirmalkar have settled their disputes amicably without pressure or fear, it wouid be

¶36

in the interest of justice to attow the petition and quash the order of the Judiciat Magistrate First Class, Durg.

¶37

I{2003).4SCC 675

¶38

S:-3S

¶39

S. Consequently, the pelition is allowed and the order of the Judicia! M^lstrate First Class, Durg is hereby quashed. The petitioners are acquittedthe chargeof Section 498-A/34 of ths Indian Penat Code.

¶40

Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge

¶41

Blv^ b l>^.1

¶42

'^
c.

Shiv Kumar Nirmalkar and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Nirmalkar and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh 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

Anish Shah and Anr. Vs Vijay Kumar Pali and Anr.

Sohan Singh Vs Shree Chand Lunia

Ravishankar Gupta Vs I.C.I.C.I.Bank Ltd. Sangrahan Prabandhak

Jai Kumar Dahariya Vs Dhanesh Finance and Leasing

Jitendra Agrawal and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Anant Vs Smt. Chandrika Anant and Others