Allowed

Djoe Isac Thomas v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Sept 2023CRMP/101/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed the FIR registered under Section 498A IPC following a settlement between the marital couple and their family members, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding quashing of matrimonial disputes.

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing Crime No. 67 of 2020 registered at police station Mahila Thana, Durg is quashed.

Djoe Isac Thomas Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 101 of 2021

¶5

Djoe Isac Thomas S/o Thomas Zachariah, Aged About 35 Years R/o Sg4, Kochuplamootil Shree Rangam Gardens, Chandranagar Post Office Palakkad Mathura Road Kerala 6780007

¶6

Thomas Zachariah, S/o Varghese Thomas, Aged About 62 Years R/o Sg4, Kochuplamootil Shree Rangam Gardens, Chandranagar Post Office Palakkad Mathura Road Kerala 6780007

¶7

Irene Zachariah W/o Thomas Zachariah, Aged About 58 Years R/o Sg4, Kochuplamootil Shree Rangam Gardens, Chandranagar Post Office Palakkad Mathura Road Kerala 6780007 (Accused)

¶8

---- Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Mahila Thana Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Smt. Anu Joseph @ Anu Djoe Isac Thomas W/o Djoe Isac Thomas, Aged About 32 Years R/o Quarter No. 18/a, Street No. 11, Sector 01 Bhilai District - Durg Chhattisgarh. (Complainant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioners	: Mr. Sunil Tripathi , Advocate
For State/Respondent No.1	: Mr. Ashish Gupta , P.L.
For Respondent No.2	: MR. M.P.S. Bhatia , Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

01.09.2023

¶18

1. By way of this petition, the relief sought by the petitioners is as

¶19

under:

¶20

“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the FIR registered against the applicants by the complainant/ respondent No.2 under crime No. 67 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC before the police station Mahila

¶21

-2-

¶22

Thana, Durg, District Durg in the interest of justice.”

¶23

1. The facts of the present case are that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were married on 24.8.2017 at St. Thomas Marthoma Church Palakkad, State of Kerala. There are two issues from their wedlock. Petitioners No.2 & 3 are father-in- -

¶24

law and mother-in l aw of respondent No.2. On 21.11.2020, respondent No.2 lodged a written report against the petitioners to the effect that she was subjected with cruelty and there was demand of dowry. It is also alleged that the petitioners passed comments regarding her character. On such complaint, the police registered the offence punishable under Section 489A of IPC against the petitioners.

¶25

1. Vide order dated 28.8.2023, The petitioners and respondent No.2 were directed to appear before this Court through Video Conferencing Mode on 1.9.2023 at 12:30 hrs. In pursuance of the above order, petitioner No.1 as well as respondent No.2 appeared before this Court through video-conferencing.

¶26

1. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are present through video-conferencing from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. They stated that they have settled their dispute and they are staying together at Sharjah. They have two children from their wedlock and they are happily enjoying their married life. Respondent No.2 – Smt. Anu Joseph @ Anu Djoe Isac Thomas has categorically stated that she does not want to pursue the criminal case pending against the petitioners, who are her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The statements made by the parties through video-conferencing are taken on record.

¶27

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent No.2 would submit that the dispute between the parties has already been settled. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that respondent No.2 does not want to pursue this criminal case furthermore against the petitioners and she

¶28

-3-

¶29

prayed that the compromise in the case may be recorded and the FIR bearing Crime No. 67 of 2020 dated 21.11.2020 may be quashed.

¶30

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶31

1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of 'Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 834' and ‘ Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2014 (6) SCC 466’ , that the matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or in the matter in which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties.

¶32

1. Given the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramgopal (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), and further considering the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled their dispute as mentioned above, the entire criminal proceedings with respect to FIR dated 21.11.2020 bearing Crime No.67/2020 registered at police station Mahila Thana, Durg is hereby quashed.

¶33

1. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶34

1. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Court for information and necessary action.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Nimmi

Djoe Isac Thomas v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Djoe Isac Thomas v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Sandeep Agrawal Vs Ballu Singh Thakur

Aditya Goel Vs K.V. Chandrashekhar

Smt.Panchkunwar and Ors. Vs Kanwal Singh and Ors.

Budhen Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madhusudan Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Sonkar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh