Parties have Agreed for Dissolution of their Marriage. Continuance of Criminal Case Under Section 498-A, I.P.C. Against Husband and Mother-in-law of Wife not in Interest of justice.
Court: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE P.K. Patra
RAJKISHORE MISHRA & ANR. Vs. STATE & ANR. On 23 March 2000
Law Point:
Parties have Agreed for Dissolution of their Marriage. Continuance of Criminal Case Under Section 498-A, I.P.C. Against Husband and Mother-in-law of Wife not in Interest of justice.
JUDGEMENT
1. In this petition under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the J.M.F.C, Anandapur in G.R. Case No. 255/92 as also to quash the proceedings in the said G.R. Case.
2. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M.M. Sahu, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, as also the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State were heard at length.
3. Petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 married opposite party No. 2 about eight years back. Due to dispute and misunderstanding between them, opposite party No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioners and G.R. Case No. 255/92 under Section 498-A, I.P.C. was registered against them. Petitioner No. 1 filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act against opposite party No. 2 for dissolution of their marriage and the said petition was registered as Civil Proceeding No. 272/96 in the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. During pendency of these two cases, there was compromise between the parties and in accordance with the said compromise, petitioner No. 1 deposited a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards permanent alimony of opposite party No. 2, before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and opposite party No. 2 agreed not to proceed in the G.R. Case pending against the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners and opposite party No. 2 filed a compromise petition on 11.10.1999 before the J.M.F.C, Anandapur and the learned J.M.F.C rejected the said petition since an offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. was not compoundable under Section 320, Cr.P.C. Hence, this revision petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged for quashing the proceeding in G.R. Case in view of the compromise between the parties. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court re. Basanta v. State, 1999 (I) OLR 8, in which a Division Bench, referring to several decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court, held that the power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be exercised sparingly and carefully with caution to secure ends of justice in cases compounding of the offence is not permissible under Section 320, Cr.P.C. It has been observed that Court should be satisfied that the compromise was voluntary and not the result of intimidation, threat, coercion or undue influence.
5. In the present case, the impugned order dated 12.10.1999 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and hence interference of this Court is not warranted. But since the parties have agreed for dissolution of their marriage and the husband has deposited a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as permanent alimony of the wife in Court, continuance of the criminal case under Section 498-A, I.P.C. against the husband and mother-in-law of the wife will not be in the interest of justice. Therefore, in order to secure ends of justice, the criminal case against the petitioners should be quashed in exercise of powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
6. Mr. Sahu, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, also supported the learned Counsel for the petitioners and urged for quashing of the criminal case pending against the petitioners.
7. In the result, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed in part. The proceeding in G.R. Case No. 255 of 1992 pending in the Court of the J.M.F.C, Anandapur is quashed.
Crl. Misc. Case partly allowed.