High Court allowed petition to quash proceedings under Section 498A IPC. Court held settlement between spouses justified quashing despite limited compounding provisions, preventing abuse of process.
Petition allowed; conviction under Section 498A IPC set aside; applicants acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
y
IB(NGUE$E l 86 ifBEiRUREESl
-sSF
IN_THEHQNLBLE HIGH COURTOF CHHAmSGARH AT
BILASPURJCLG.l
CR.M.P. N0. ?3 QF 2018^
L
APPLICANTS 1.
^
^
"M
-^^Q.'<br>^-'
3.
Bharat Lal Kaushik S/o Shri Dhanau Ram Kaushik, aged about 25 years,
Murit Ram Kaushik S/o Shri Dhanau Ram Kaushik, aged about 32 years,
Asha Kaushik W/o Murit
Ram. Kaushik, aged about
28 years,
.-,.
Smt. Ram. Bai Kaushik W/o Dhanau Ram Kaushik, aged about 63 years,
All are R/o Village - Hirri, Police Station- Hirri, Civil & Revenue District - BUaspur (C.G.)
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT 1.
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Magistrate/Station House Officer, Police StationChakarbhatha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
<l{VS <$->^
S^lS^-^i^A-'?'.',•,^e^'- •"•wS.^SgSgi^i^'^~''S^/S^S:.K:!S'SS:^^:^^t^^^lit^
C^irv)£^o-<^2./2-u;i_ ,p,^ ^ c^t=^,faK°->k^ APPLICATIQN UNDfcR SEC'rtON 482 OF THE CODEOF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
V.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2013 passed by the learned 3Td Additibnal Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 320/2012, whereby an application under section 320 f4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by the non applicant no. 2 for perraission to compound the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was dismissed on fhe ground that section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not stipulate corapounding of offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The applicants prefer instant application under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the following facts
and grounds:-
Page l
/Tft.'. !i
HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP
kft ^ .'>
Cr.M.P.No.39of2014
^'
Applicants
VERSUS
Respondents
1.8tate ofChhattisgarh
APPLICATION U/S. 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
SB: Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri. J.
Present:
Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Ashish Beck, Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
ORDER
(Passed on 05th day of February, 2014)
The brief facts of the case is that the applicant No.1 Bharat Lal Kaushik was married to non-applicant No.2 Riya @ Dhaneshwari on 10.03.2008. It was further case of the non-applicant No.2/wife that a complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. was filed and an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was prosecuted and on that a criminal case under Section 498A, 323, 294 & 506/34 of IPC was lodged before the Police Station Chakarbhata on 09.04.2012. Further on the basis of such report, the applicants/accused were arrested and charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belha. After recording of all the
^^^^^gs^^c^^^^t^^^y^^i^^T^^^^hjyByiu^wuuaflfea^^^
Page2
evidence, the applicants were tried and eventually the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class by judgment dated 29.11.2012 convicted the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.l. for 2 years and fine of Rs.2000/- each was also imposed, in absence of payment of fine, additional S.l. for 2 months was ordered for.
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.11.2012 whereby the applicants were convicted for the offence under Section 498A, the applicants filed an appeal before the learned Court of Sessions at Bilaspur, whichwas registered as Criminal Appeal No.320/2012. During the pendency of such appeal, the applicant No.l/husband and the nonapplicant No.2/wife have settled their dispute as husband and wife and on the basis of that, an application was preferred under Section 320(4) of Cr.P.C. by the wife on the ground that the dispute do not exists further, in as much as, the same was amicable settled and she do not wants to further prosecute the case and press for the sentence.
The learned Court of Sessions Judge, after hearing the application, dismissed the same on the ground that Section 498A of IPC since do not contemplate any provisions for compromise as such the same was dismissed.
During the course of proceeding, the respective parties namely the applicant No.l/husband and the non-applicant No.2/wife along with the other accused also appeared in person before this Court, who were identified by their respective counsel. On having made enquiry by the Government counsel, the non-applicant No.2/wife also admitted to the fact that she has compromised with the applicant No.l/husband and wants to stay with his family at her matrimonial home.
Page3
During the course of hearing, in order to show the bonafide and in furtherance of compromise, the applicant No.1 has placed on record an affidavit wherein he has stated that the compromise has been affected and he wanted to lead the life happily and further had assured that he will never make cruelty to the non-applicant No.2/wife.
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 ofthe Code. Inherent power is ofwide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends ofjustice or (ii) to prevent abuse ofthe process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.1.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heirious and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed eyen though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the vtetim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal
'(2012) 10 SCC 303
Page4
^\
proceedingsinvolvingsuchoffences.Butthecriminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to, the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
2(2003) 4 SCC 675
Page5
"14. There is no doubt that the object 'btlntroducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A 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 hyper-technical view would be counter productive 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 XXA of Indian Penal Code.
9.
The principles laid down by the Supreme Court clearly leads to an irresistible conclusion that a dispute which arise out of a matrimonial nature where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings. If the High Court finds it to be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and make put to an end to the criminal case.
—A
^^s^gi^
fc .. ^'
Page6
//
appeared before the Court in person appears to be just and bonafide. This also fortified by the further afRdavit filed by the applicant during the course of proceedings.
conviction of the applicants under Section 498A of IPC is set aside. The
ashok [i .„
applicants are acquitted ofthe said charges.
Sd/-
Goutam Bhaduri Judge
'sa::
--^-
as&^^s^a»^^_
3 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court can exercise inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC upon settlement between spouses.
Whether Section 320 CrPC limits the power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC regarding compounding of matrimonial offences.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law despite full settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶62
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶69
B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bharat Lal Kaushik
Murit Ram Kaushik
Asha Kaushik
Ram Bai Kaushik
State of Chhattisgarh
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
