Petition for quashing matrimonial criminal proceedings dismissed as the settlement agreement severed marital ties and did not fully resolve the dispute underlying the case.
Criminal petition dismissed for lack of merit; interim order of 12.06.2023 vacated.
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.
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC040007412023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : Crl.Petn./101/2023
Tam Tania @ Tarh and Anr. S/o Lt. Tam Tale,
Resident of Dobum Village, Banderdewa, PO/PS Banderdewa, District Papum Pare (AP)
Contact No. 09436058000
2: Tam Tado
Age: Occupation : Resident of Dobum Village Banderdewa PO/PS Banderdewa District Papum Pare (AP)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF AP Represented through Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh.
Advocate for the Petitioner : T J Dogum
Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP
BEFORE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
ORDER
Date : 16-08-2023
Heard Mr. T. Johnney, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
Page No.# 2/8
Procedure, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the G. R. Case No. 564/2016, under Sections 498(A)/325 IPC arising out of Itanagar Women P. S. Case No. 73/2016, under Section 498 (A)/324 IPC.
Page No.# 3/8
First Class on being endorsed to it by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In the Charge-sheet filed, it has been stated that during the course of investigation, the complainant cum victim was examined and her statement was recorded. The complainant was also medically examined and as per the medical report of the complainant, “fractured shaft of 4th meta central bone and dislocated coraco acromial joint” has been found. It has further been stated in the Charge-sheet that on 05.08.2016, the accused/petitioner no. 1 appeared at the Women Police Station along with Interim Bail granted by the Sessions Court West Sessions Division in AB no. 69/16 and on such appearance of the accused/petitioner no. 1, he was examined and his statement was recorded, whereafter, the accused/petitioner no. 1 was formally arrested and released on execution of the bail bond, in terms of the interim bail granted by the Sessions Judge, West Division, in AB no. 69/16. On 19.09.2016, the complainant/petitioner no. 2 appeared at the Women Police Station Itanagar and reported that on 27.08.2016, the petitioner no. 1, her husband, again came to her house and assaulted her. On 16.09.2016, again the petitioner no. 1 assaulted her when she went to meet him in the house of his elder brother, for financial help for her son’s medical check-up. Under the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner no. 1 was sent to trial under Section 498(A)/325 IPC instead of the earlier registered case under Section 498(A)/324 IPC.
Page No.# 4/8
quashing of the aforesaid G. R. Case No. 564/2016, under Sections 498 A/325 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, against the petitioner no. 1, has contended that since the aforesaid G. R. Case No. 564/2016 has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner no. 2, and the petitioners no. 2 & 1, being the wife and husband and that the petitioners no. 1 & 2 have settled their differences by a Deed of Settlement Agreement, dated 02.06.2023 [Annexed as Annexure – IV (series) to the petition], proceeding of the G. R. Case No. 564/2016, under Sections 498 A/325 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, deserves to be quashed as the same arose out of a dispute between a husband and wife and therefore, it essentially arose out of a matrimonial dispute.
“15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;”
Page No.# 5/8
disputes and by Clause – 6 of the Deed of Settlement Agreement, the petitioners have severed their matrimonial relationship and accordingly, she contends that since the petitioners have agreed to end their matrimonial relationship, the petitioners have wrongly projected themselves in the instant proceeding as husband and wife. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, further submits that a perusal of the Deed of Settlement Agreement, dated 02.06.2023, does not indicate that the G. R. Case No. 564/2016, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, against the petitioner no. 1 has been settled by the petitioners, though there is an indication of settlement regarding judgment/decree, dated 26.05.2022, passed by the Court of JMFC, Yupia, Papum pare District, but no number or the nature of case on which the judgment/decree, dated 26.05.2023 is stated to have been passed has been mentioned and also some settlement regarding domestic violence and maintenance case of the parties. She therefore, has submitted that since there appears to be no indication of any mutual settlement arrived at between the petitioners, insofar as G. R. Case No. 564/2016, under Sections 498 A/325 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, is concerned, by the Deed of Settlement Agreement, dated 02.06.2023, the proceeding of the G. R. Case may not be quashed by this Court.
Page No.# 6/8
out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes, when the parties have resolved the entire disputes among themselves. Quashing of criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., which had arisen out of commercial transactions or matrimonial relationship or family disputes, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, pre-supposes that the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
Deed of A Settlement Agreement
This deed of settlement agreement is made on this 2 nd day of June 2023.
-Between-
Smti. Tam Tado, w/o. Tam Tania, age about 45 years, Resident of Dobum village Banderdewa, PO/PS Banderdewa, Papum pare: District, Arunachal Pradesh, hereinafter called THE PARTY TO THE FIRST PART (Herein referred as Plaintiff/Complainant).
-AND-
Shri Tam Tania @ Tarh Tania, C/o Tam Lalu, age about 49 years, resident of D-sector near polo park Naharlagun, PO/PS Naharlagun, Papum pare: District, Arunachal Pradesh hereinafter called THE PARTY TO THE SECOND PART (herein referred as Defendant/Respondent/Accuse person).
Whereas, the parties have with full knowledge and consent have without any undue influence, threat, coercion, fraudulent or malice etc have signed and delivered before relatives and family members on the day and date above mentioned. The contents and averments made are well explained and understood to the language they are well known.
Now these witnessed the parties have agreed to the following terms and conditions:
1. That the party to the first part and second part are both husband and wife and they have amicably settled their disputes arising out of there wedlock they were bless with two siblings namely Shri Tam
Page No.# 7/8
Mangkum and Miss Tam Angkung who are minor, and has not attend the age of major and misunderstanding has unconditionally agreed to withdraw/disposed mutually the instant case which are filed before the court as well as outside of the court.
2. That the party to the first part and second party has amicably settled their differences arising of their misunderstanding as per their local traditions and customs prevalent in society.
3. That the party to the First part and second part out of compassionate and moral ground have paid sum of Rs. 1 Lakh (one lakh) has given to the First part as per judgment/decree dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Hon’ble JMFC, Yupia, Papum pare district, Arunachal Pradesh.
4. The parties have agreed further not to continue any legal proceeding about the said dispute in near future anymore in any court or proceedings.
5. That the parties have made their consent on full and free consent and knowledge on free will and acknowledged the same without any undue influence, coercion, threat from any individual or any one and the contents of this agreement they have been explained and the same have been read over and the same have been translated to the language they the same has been understood by both the parties.
6. That the First Party and Second Party shall have no any marital relationship except that the First Party shall allowed the Second Party to meet their child as father of the children.
7. That the defendant/respondent accuse person is willing to bear the expenses for children which covers all necessities, including medical expenses, basic necessities fooding and cloathing, and educations, amounting to Rupees 15,000/- per month (fifteen thousand) only (or will be paid wholesome annually) which shall be applicable to both Domestic Violence and Maintenance case of the parties.
In witnesses: Smti Tam Tado 1. Bengia Tang (THE PARTY TO THE FIRST PART) 2. 3. Biri Umesh (THE PARTY TO THE SECOND PART)
Shri. Tam Tania @ Tarh Tania
Page No.# 8/8
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. Since, the resolution of the dispute or the amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties is the pre-requisite for quashing any criminal proceedings involving noncompoundable offences, that may have arisen out of commercial transactions or matrimonial relationship or family disputes, in the absence of any resolution or amicable settlement between the parties, insofar as, dispute relating to the G. R. Case No. 564/2016, under Sections 498 A/325 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, vide the Deed of Settlement Agreement, dated 02.06.2023, which is the basis of the petitioners’ seeking quashing of the G. R. Case No. 564/2016, under Sections 498 A/325 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, I am of the considered view that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C cannot be exercised by this Court in the facts and circumstances of this case, quashing the proceeding of the G. R. Case No. 564/2016, under Sections 498 A/325 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 498(A)/325 IPC can be quashed based on a Deed of Settlement Agreement that severed the parties' marital relationship and did not resolve the specific di
Whether the prerequisite of an amicable settlement of the entire dispute between the parties for quashing non-compoundable offences arising from matrimonial disputes has been met.
Whether this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the pending trial proceedings in the given facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and OthersReferred¶31
(2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Tam Tania @ Tarh and Anr.
The State of AP
Nani Tagia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
