Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
S. 320 CrPC Not A Bar To Exercise Power For Quashing FIR: Bombay High Court Quashes S. 377 IPC Case On Settlement Between Married Couple
|The Bombay High Court was satisfied with the fact that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and genuine.
The Bombay High Court has quashed the proceedings under Sections 498-A and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act), on account of settlement between the married couple.
The Nagpur Bench was hearing three Criminal Applications filed for quashing of the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings, which was pending before the Joint Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice M.M. Nerlikar held, “Though Sections 498-A and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non compoundable, to secure ends of justice the Court should hold that the provisions under Section 320 would not be a bar to exercise the power for quashing the first information report, charge sheet or subsequent criminal proceedings. It is not in dispute that the powers under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and it should be used only if the Court is satisfied that the material placed on record is satisfactory, and allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of Court.”
The Bench was satisfied with the fact that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and genuine.
Advocate S.P. Sonwane appeared on behalf of the Applicants while APP S.M. Ukey and Advocate J.B. Gandhi appeared on behalf of the Non-Applicants.
Facts of the Case
An FIR was registered against the Applicants involving the informant’s husband, his two sisters, and his maternal aunt. Based on the complaint so lodged, the prosecution case was that the marriage between the informant (wife) and applicant (husband) was solemnized in 2023. The wife alleged that at the time of marriage, her father gave valuable gifts to her husband which included gold ornaments, motor cycle, motor car, etc. It was further alleged that her father had incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs in the marriage. After the marriage, when the wife went to her matrimonial home, allegedly her sister-in-law had taken some golden ornaments from her stating that the same belongs to her. They alleged certain things against her father on the count of not giving certain items.
It was also alleged that her husband was in the habit of drinking liquor and his sisters were also harassing her. Allegedly, her husband was forcefully doing unnatural sex with her, due to which she sustained injuries to her private part. It was further alleged that his maternal aunt demanded 5 acres of land and 2 BHK flat and his sister tried to hack her mobile through some third person. The counsel for the Applicants submitted that parties have settled their dispute before the Family Court by entering into a memorandum of understanding/consent terms, and based on that, a consent decree was passed in respect of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA).
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “In the present case, it can be gathered from the settlement arrived between the parties that the applicant Akshay and the informant wanted to bury all their disputes relating to matrimonial issues. Therefore, in the situation wherein the matrimonial tie has been brought to an end by mutual consent and the parties are eager to move ahead in their respective life, and further if the prayer for quashing the criminal proceeding is not entertained, it would tantamount to causing injustice to them. Therefore, in order to do complete justice, by taking recourse to the above cited judgments, the prayer for quashing the proceedings can be considered.”
The Court was of the view that instead of dragging the parties to the Court, and by protecting their right to live happily for the betterment of their future, the action should be encouraged by quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice.
“Needless to mention that considering the recent trend of filing first information reports against as many as persons from husband side, has become imperative to look the matters of matrimonial disputes from a different angle, and therefore, if the parties settle their disputes amicably in order to live peacefully, it is the duty of the Court to encourage such action by entertaining the prayer for quashing of the first information report, charge sheet or criminal proceedings”, it noted.
The Court further remarked that marital discord has now a days become menace in the society due to various factors and the parties who are fighting due to these, marital discord are having several remedies in law.
“The small issue between the two are spoiling the entire life and the marriages which are sacrosanct in Hindus are at stake. Marriages are not merely a social contract, but, a spiritual union that binds two souls together. However, now a days these scared marriages receive set back in the above circumstances. The distress, disharmony and lack of adjustment amongst the persons lead to conflict”, it added.
The Court also said that legislation intended to improve marital relationships, such as the Domestic Violence Act, the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act etc., are frequently misused by parties, resulting in multiplicity of litigation, that not only burdens the Court, but also cause mental as well as physical harassment, endless conflict, financial loss and irreversible harm to children and other family members.
“In such cases, the Court should support a respectful settlement to terminate all litigation between the parties while protecting their life and liberty, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, it emphasised.
The Court, therefore, concluded that matrimonial disputes, if re-union is not possible, shall be put to an end as early as possible otherwise the life of persons will be ruined, if it is permitted to go on and would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence, the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) can be exercised to do complete justice which would save the future life of husband and wife and they would be free to lead their respective life happily and with dignity, which is another facet of Article 21.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Applications and quashed the proceedings.
Cause Title- ABC v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:6625-DB)