1) The captioned application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) as well as the captioned writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arise out of the first information report registered vide Nadiad Town Police Station I- C.R. No.129 of 2008 and as such the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2) The second respondent lodged the above referred first information report against the petitioners in both the matters alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 498(A) and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3) Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1722 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioners therein for quashing and setting aside the above referred first information report, whereas Special Criminal Application No.2425 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioners therein challenging the order dated 07.03.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad, below Exh.3, in Criminal Case No.4623 of 2008, whereby the application filed by the petitioners, seeking discharge, has been rejected as well as the order dated 19.09.2009 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda camp at Nadiad, whereby the revision application filed by the petitioners under section 397 of the Code has been dismissed.
4) Vide order dated 12.07.2011, since there were possibilities of settling the dispute, the matters had been referred to the Mediation Centre, Gujarat High Court, pursuant to which, the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them which has been reduced in writing by way of a memorandum of settlement dated 18.4.2012, which has been forwarded along with a report of the mediator vide communication dated 19.4.2012 and has been placed on the record of the Court.
5) Mr. Umang Oza, learned advocate for Mr. B.S. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Pavan Barot, learned advocate for the second respondent-original first informant have submitted before the court that in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the first information report in question as well as all proceedings pursuant thereto are required to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.
6) A perusal of the record of the case reveals that the allegations made in the first information report in question are in respect of the offence under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Dowry Prohibition Act. Considering the nature of allegations levelled in the first information report it is apparent that the dispute is more in the nature of a personal dispute in respect of a matrimonial matter. At this juncture it may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, wherein it has been observed thus:
“Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which of- ten assume serious proportions resulting in com- mission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matri- monial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of intro- ducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relat- ives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exer- cise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.
7) Examining the facts of the present case, in the light of the above referred decision of the Supreme Court, this court is of the view that the same would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. This being a matrimonial matter, if the prosecu- tion is permitted to continue, the same would cause undue harassment to both the parties and would not permit either of the parties to settle down early in life. Besides, in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there are hardly any chances of an ultimate conviction. Under the circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would be an empty formality warranting exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code.
8) It may be noted that the learned advocate for the petitioners has handed over a demand draft of rupees two lakhs to the learned advocate for the second re- spondent and has also tendered a copy thereof to the court which is taken on record.
9) For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are, accordingly, allowed. The first information report registered vide Nadiad Town Police Station I-
C.R. No.129 of 2008 as well as all proceedings pursu- ant there to, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.)
Vahid