All these three petitions are interconnected and parties are also common, hence the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
In Special Criminal Application No.431 of 2010, the petitioners seek quashing of Criminal Case No.1367 of 2008 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Valiya against the petitioners therein, arising out of the first information report registered vide Valiya Police Station I - C.R. No.52/2008.
In Special Criminal Application No.1983 of 2010, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.41 of 2010 which are pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Valiya and also arise out of the above referred first information report.
In Special Criminal Application No.535 of 2010, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.465 of 2009 filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which are pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fourth Court, at Godhra.
The first information report dated 12.6.2008 registered vide Valiya Police Station I C.R. No.52/2008 as well as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.465 of 2009 have been filed by the second respondent
- Krimaliben against her husband and in-laws. Vide order dated 9.4.2012 passed in the above referred petitions, the parties had agreed to file the agreed draft for divorce by mutual consent in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bharuch on 11.4.2012. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the parties have filed a petition under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, which has culminated into a decree of dissolution of marriage.
Mr.
A. D. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners has placed on record certified copies of the said petition, being H. M. P. No.16 of 2012 made under section 13-B for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as the copies of the orders passed thereon, on the record of this court. The respondent No.2 - Krimaliben is also personally present before this court.
Mr.
Shah invited the attention of the court to the contents of the said petition wherein it has been agreed that after the decree of divorce is granted, the petitioner No.2 ( that is, the respondent No.2 herein), shall withdraw all the pending legal proceedings against petitioner No.1, that is, Vanrajsinh Gothana and his family members. It is pointed out that vide judgement and order dated 5.5.2012, a decree of dissolution of marriage under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been passed by the learned, wherein it has been observed that a demand draft of Rs.14,50,000/- has already been deposited in the court by the petitioner No.1 therein and the said draft is ordered to be paid to the petitioner No.2, that is, respondent No.2 herein.
Mr.
Shah, accordingly, submitted that in the light of the aforesaid fact, the parties having amicably resolved the disputes between them and the respondent No.2 having agreed to withdraw all pending legal proceedings in the petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, the above referred proceedings lodged against the petitioners herein are required to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.
The respondent No.2 - Krimaliben Vanrajsinh Gothana is present before the court and has agreed with the submissions made by Mr. A. D. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, and has submitted that in the light of the aforesaid judgement and order dated 5.5.2012; she has no objection if the above referred proceedings are quashed.
From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that the parties have amicably resolved the differences between them, culminating into a decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the light of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the respondent No.2-original complainant is no longer interested in prosecuting the petitioners. The dispute between the parties is more in the nature of a personal dispute arising out of a matrimonial matter. Under the circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would cause undue harassment to both the parties and that they would not be able to settle early in life. Moreover, in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties, the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak. The Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 has 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 often assume serious proportions resulting in commission 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 matrimonial 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 introducing 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 relatives 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-exercise 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.
The above decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. This is, therefore, a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are, accordingly, allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No.1367 of 2008 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Valiya, the proceedings of Criminal Case No.41 of 2010 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Valiya, as well as the proceedings of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.465 of 2009 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fourth Court, at Godhra, are hereby quashed and set aside. The parties agree that in view of the quashing of the proceedings, the petitioners shall not file any other proceedings in respect thereof against the respondent No.2. It is made clear that the proceedings by and between the parties shall come to an end by this order and that, no further proceedings shall be taken by either of the parties against each other.
Rule is made absolute, accordingly, in all these petitions.
Direct Service is permitted.
[HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar* Top