Case title:
B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
Date of Order:
13 March 2003
Bench:
Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema.
Parties:
PETITIONER: B.S. Joshi & Ors.
RESPONDENT: State of Haryana & Anr.
SUBJECT
- The High Court’s decision that violations of Sections 498A and 406 of the Penal code cannot be remedied through negotiation has led the appellants, a husband and his family, to ask that the FIR be dismissed. They contend that Section 320 of the IPC does not place restrictions on the powers conferred under Section 482, and the High Court doesn’t hold the authority to halt criminal proceedings or FIRs.
- The Supreme Court overturned the contested decision and upheld the appeal, permitting the FIR to be dismissed.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- The Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses marital issues and illegal breaches of trust in Sections 498A and 406, respectively. Married women are shielded from abuse or harassment by spouses or family members under Section 498A. It is a crime that is not subject to bail and is penalised by up to three years in prison as well as a fine.
- Section 406 deals with unlawful breach of trust, which occurs when someone misappropriates or illegally transforms property in flouting the law. Both clauses are punishable by a maximum of three years in prison as well as a penalty and are non-bailable.
- CRPC's main features include conducting a fair and impartial investigation, making arrests and posting bail, holding trials, handing down verdicts, permitting appeals, and developing special protocols for minors, sensitive cases, and special courts. It collaborates with actual criminal legislation, such the Indian Penal Code (IPC), to guarantee the unbiased and fair treatment of criminal proceedings.
OVERVIEW
- Appellant No.4 ( husband land Respondent No.2 ( wife ) were married on July 21, 1999, and have been living separately since July 15, 2000. FIR No.8 was registered in 2002 due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. The wife filed an affidavit, stating her disputes with the appellants have been settled and they have agreed for a mutual divorce.
- The High Court dismissed the appellants' petition for quashing the FIR, stating that offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC are non-compoundable and inherent powers cannot circumvent Section 320. The court relied on previous cases in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.
- In terms of these categories, the High Court has concluded that the criteria, principles, and procedures for quashing complaints, first information reports, and criminal proceedings have been settled. The court did not find the current case to fall into any of these categories. The court has overlooked the earlier portion of para 102, which emphasised that the categories were provided as examples rather than full lists.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The High Court’s ruling that the offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be resolved through compromise as well as the inherent authority under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code of India (CrPC) are insufficient to get about the requirement of Section 320 of the CrPC is the reason the appellants (husband and his immediate family) are asking for the dismissal of the FIR.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The counsel for respondent No.2 who is supporting the appeal requests that the FIR be quashed.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- (FIRs) in cases involving Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code have been invalidated by the High Court because doing so is illegal. The HC’s inherent powers under Section 482 are not restricted by the bar in sub-section (2) of Section 397, which the court found was improperly read and applied in the Madhu Limaye case.
- The court emphasised that even in cases involving interlocutory orders, the bar should not prohibit the High Court from intervening to stop the misuse of judicial procedures and guarantee justice is served.
- Madhu Limaye's case does not limit power to quashing criminal proceedings or FIRs under Section 482 or Article 226. However, if necessary for justice, Section 320 would not bar quashing power. The High Court relied on Surendra Nath Mohanty's ruling that non-compoundable offenses cannot be compounded without court permission.
- In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., the High Court quashed proceedings based on special features in a case, determining whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice. The Court's duty is to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. In G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors., the Court observed that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times.
- Marriage is a sacred ceremony, but little skirmishes can escalate into serious crimes, often involving elders of the family. The Court should not encourage matrimonial litigation to allow parties to resolve disputes amicably by mutual agreement, rather than fighting them in court.
- The High Court can quash criminal proceedings or FIRs, and Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code does not limit powers under Section 482.
- The SC set aside the appeal and allowed the impugned judgment to quash the FIR.
