Case Title:
Yash and Ors. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Date of Order:
03/10/2022
Judge(s):
Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rajesh Patil
Parties:
Applicants: Yas, Rajeshkumar, and Rajni Rajesh Maheshwari
Respondents : State of Maharashtra and Priyanka
Subject
Cases relating to Domestic Violence are to be quashed when parties arrive at a settlement if it involves non-compoundable offences else it would be hazardous to force a couple who want to live together, to litigate. It would be a “dis-service to the society for the protection of which the court exists”, the bench of Bombay High Court held. A domestic violence case under 498 A of IPC filed by the wife against her husband and in-laws on a criminal application filed by the latter under Section 482 of CrPC was quashed.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
I) Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
[498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]
II) Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
III) Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
320. Compounding of offences.—
(1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian PenalCode (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons as mentioned in the table of the bare act.
(2) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the table of the bare act.
(3) When an offence is compoundable under this section, the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence (when such attempt is itself an offence) or where the accused is liable under section 34 or 149 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be compounded in like manner.
(4) (a) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf may, with the permission of the Court, compound such offence.
(b) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) of such person may, with the consent of the Court, compound such offence.
(5) When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.
(6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section.
(7) No offence shall be compounded if the accused is, by reason of a previous conviction, liable either to enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a different kind for such offence.
(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.
IV) Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
9. Restitution of conjugal rights. - When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. [Explanation. Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.
V) Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
12. Application to Magistrate.—
(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act: Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent: Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off.
(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto.
(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court.
(5) The Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.
FACTS
- The applicant and the respondent were solemnized on 28.02.2017 at Aurangabad and they have a son named Ayansh from wedlock. The FIR stated demand of dowry from the respondent’s father and that informant was harassed and abused by all the applicants before driving her out of the home.
- Aggrieved and fed up with the ill-treatment and mental agony, complained (Crime No. 382/2020) against all the applicants. The applicants stated that they live in a joint family. On 28 March, 2018 the respondent left the applicant’s company without the consent of the applicant and birther a baby boy, Ayansh on 18.11.2018.The applicants stated in their application that they tried calling her back to the matrimonial home but all in vain.
- Thus the applicant was forced to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 21.09.2020.later, the respondent filed a complaint against the applicants at Vajirbad Police Station for ill-treatment by in-lawsunder Sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.It was alleged that this complaint was false and was instigated by her relatives and parents.
- The FIR was induced maliciously to seek vengeance against the applicants. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed and culminated into Regular Criminal Case No. 298/2022, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCEDBY THE APPLICANTS
- Shri N.K. Tungar representing the applicants contended that the case being a matrimonial issue and the parties have come to a compromise, there serves no purpose to prolong the case any further and in the interest of justice, the proceeding should be quashed against the applicants. He had also submitted that the informant had filed an affidavit stating that both the family have resolved the issue in presence of the close relatives and agreed to continue the marriage. Thus the petition filed by the applicant for restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed by the Ahmedabad Family Court and in case of deference, parties would arrive at an amicable settlement.
- The respondent withdrew the application filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by purshis, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded (P.W.D.V.A. Application No. 31/2020). Therefore it is prudent to dismiss the case and not waste the time of the court when the matters are compromised. The affidavit filed by the respondent consenting to quash the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom was also annexed with the application.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS
- Shri A.M Phule learned APP and Shri V.C Patil were appearing as the respondent. The arguments put forward by Shri N.K Tungar were countenanced by the respondent’s counsel.
JUDGMENT
- The interest of justice in matrimonial disputes is inclined towards retrieving the bondage of togetherness of the family. It would be unfruitful to discuss a court case that’s already been compromised.The interestin justice is supreme of all laws, but this does not render that there can be altercation in technicalities. If in case of disallow in compounding matrimonial offences, then it will be a dig-service to society to protect the court that exists. The affidavit filed by the respondent consenting to quash the proceedings was scrutinized.
- Citing the Supreme Court case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675, the judgment was analyzed relating to the provisions of Section 320 CrPC and that it would not apply to offences that are non-compoundable and does not limit or affect powers conferred under Section 482 CrPC. The Apex Court laid out that it is important to quash FIR to secure justice and Section 320 CrPC will not bar the quashing powers. Exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash proceedings in light of circumstances of the case even for non-compoundable offences is justified when donefor securing justice. The court is contemplating that notwithstanding offences under Section 498 A IPC (non-compoundable offence), there is no impediment to quashing FIR under the aforementioned section if the court is otherwise satisfied with the facts and circumstances of the case warrants so.
- In another case Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303, the Supreme Court held that criminal cases with predominantly civil in nature have different stances for quashing especially offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where wrong is private and parties have resolved disputes. In such cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings, if it is satisfied that the compromise between offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of the criminal case is likely to cause oppression and prejudice to the accused. Grave injustice would be caused to him if the criminal proceedings are not quashed despitethe settlement with the victim. As inherent powers do not have any statutory limitation, they shall be exercised and engrafted to secure justice and prevent abuse of the process of any court.
- In the current case, when the matter was settled by the spouses themselves with help of relatives, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. Continuation of such criminal cases would cause injustice to the accused when the criminal case is not quashed despite full settlement and compromise. This case is one such instance where Section 482 of CrPC can be availed to quash the FIR and further proceedings.
- The affidavit by the respondent consenting to quash FIR was taken on record and the criminal application was allowed in terms of prayer. F.I.R. vide C. R. No. 381/2020 registered at Vaijrabad Police station, Nanded against the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and the charge-sheet culminated into RCC No. 298/2022 were quashed and set aside by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nanded.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
