The Patna High Court ruled that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not prevent the quashing of a matrimonial dispute under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even when it involves non-compoundable offences under Sections 498(A) and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, if the parties have amicably settled the matter.
The Court was addressing a petition to quash the Trial Court’s order taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 498(A) and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The single bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey observed, “…it is clear that, if the matter relates to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the dispute has been settled by the parties amicably, there would be no bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for exercise of inherent power of the quashing of the First Information Report, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings even if the offences are non-compoundable.”
The wife alleged that the petitioner and others demanded a four-wheeler as dowry and harassed her when the demand was not met. She further claimed that her husband forced her to undergo an abortion, but she eventually gave birth to a female child. When she tried to return to her in-laws’ home, they allegedly demanded money in the child’s name to allow her to stay there.
The petitioners’ counsel submitted that during the pendency of the case, the husband and wife reconciled, are now living happily together at their workplace, and have filed a joint compromise petition. The State’s APP also stated that the State has no objection to quashing the cognizance order, as the matter has been amicably resolved. Both parties argued that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the Court’s process, especially since the trial court cannot close the case due to the non-compoundable nature of the offence under Section 498A IPC.
The Court began by observing that offences under Section 498A of the IPC are non-compoundable. It referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2003) and Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi (2013), which addressed the scope of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable matrimonial disputes.
The Court reaffirmed that the High Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings in cases of private disputes where the parties have amicably resolved their differences and reached a compromise.
“…..it is amply clear that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code which is unaffected by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Though the two powers are distinct and different yet the ultimate consequence may be same viz., acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment. Inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is seemingly unfettered but it has to be exercised in accordance with the limitation mentioned in the provision itself, i.e. (i) to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or (iii) to secure the ends of justice,” the Court observed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the amicable resolution of the dispute between the parties, the Court held that allowing the trial court proceedings to continue would not serve the interest of justice. It noted that such proceedings could cause unnecessary harassment, agony, and pain to both the petitioners and the wife, amounting to an abuse of the Court’s process.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed.