While giving paramount importance to the compromise arrived at between the parties, the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in its wisdom in an extremely laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment titled Dhanraj vs The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application No. 3 of 2021 that was decided finally on October 3, 2022 has ruled explicitly that FIR can be quashed in case of non-compoundable offence if it brings peace and secures ends of justice. It must be mentioned here that the Division Bench of Hon’ble Smt Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajesh S Patil opined that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is a non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this Section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. In view of the above, we thus see that the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the criminal application.
At the very outset, this most commendable, courageous, cogent and convincing oral judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajesh S Patil for a Division Bench of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Smt Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and himself sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth aptly in para 1 that:
This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing First Information Report vide C.R. No.389/2020 registered at Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
FACTS:
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench then envisages in para 2 of this remarkable judgment that,
2.1] The marriage of respondent no. 2 with applicant no. 3 was solemnized on 22.12.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs at Satvachan Mangal Karyalaya, Nagpur. They have no issue from the said wedlock.
2.2] It is the case of respondent no. 2 in the FIR that, the respondent no. 2 is a B.E. Computer Engineer. On 28.07.2019, the engagement ceremony of respondent no. 2 with applicant no. 1 took place at Nanded. As decided, the father of respondent no. 2 had transferred online Rs. 4.00 lakhs in the account of father of applicant no. 3 and thereafter cash amount of Rs. 8.00 lakhs with golden ring of two tolas was given. After the marriage, the respondent no. 2 had gone to her matrimonial house and within two days thereafter, she had returned her parental home at Nanded. Thereafter, her husband had come to Nanded to take her back to her matrimonial home at Nagpur. After residing with the applicants in a common shelter at Nagpur, respondent no. 2 and applicant no. 3 left for Gurugram in Haryana and started residing there in a rented room.
2.3] The respondent no. 2 has made serious allegations in the FIR against all the accused persons. When the respondent no. 2 realized that the efforts of conciliation were not bearing any fruits, she filed complaint/report against all the applicants in the police station. Accordingly, FIR was registered.
2.4] The applicants have filed the present criminal application challenging the FIR bearing Crime No. 389/2020 challenging therein that all the allegations made in the FIR are false and there was no demand of money. Since the marriage between respondent no. 2 and applicant no. 3 did not work out, the respondent no. 2 has filed the FIR out of vengeance. The allegations made therein are baseless and vague. Hence, the FIR requires to be quashed and set aside.
ANALYSIS
While citing the relevant case law, the Division Bench then states in para 6 that:
In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
While citing yet another relevant case law, the Division Bench then points out in para 7 that:
The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
- Ends of justice, or
- To prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
Fittingly enough, the Division Bench then commendably observes in para 8 that, The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law, if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Be it noted, the Division Bench then notes in para 9 that:
The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
It would be germane to note that the Division Bench then while citing the relevant case law minces no words to propound in para 10 that:
It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
Most significantly, the Division Bench then while citing the most relevant case law minces no words to indubitably hold in para 11 that:
It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not.
In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing.
In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non- compoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is a non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
Quite rationally, the Division Bench then clearly stated in para 12 that:
Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
As a corollary, the Division Bench then holds in para 13 that:
In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
Adding more to it, the Division Bench then mandates in para 14 of this notable judgment that:
Accordingly, this Criminal Application is allowed and First Information Report vide C.R. No.389/2020 registered at Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the applicants.
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 15 that:
This Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.
In essence, we thus see that the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has minced just no words to make it indisputably clear that FIR can be quashed in case of non-compoundable offence if it brings peace and secures ends of justice. This will also help a lot in reducing the backlog of pending cases in courts and so it definitely must be encouraged also! It is also certainly a no-brainer and therefore merits no reiteration that all the Courts must definitely pay heed to what the Bombay High Court has laid down so very elegantly, eloquently and effectively in this leading case. There can be just no denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh
