The Patna High Court has held that Section 320 of Cr.P.C. is no bar to quashing a matrimonial dispute under Section 482 Cr.P.C. involving non-compoundable offences under Sections 498 (A) and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, amicably settled by the parties.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of Trial Court's order whereby it took cognizance against the Petitioners under Sections 498 (A) and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The single bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey observed, "...it is clear that, if the matter relates to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the dispute has been settled by the parties amicably, there would be no bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for exercise of inherent power of the quashing of the First Information Report, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings even if the offences are non-compoundable."

The Petitioner-Hubsand was represented by Advocate Vijay Anand while the Respondent-State was represented by Advocate Arun Kumar Singh.

It was alleged by the Wife that the Petitioner and others started demanding a four-wheeler vehicle and due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, she was harassed. She further alleged that the Husband forced her to have an abortion but she eventually gave birth to a female child and when she attempted to return to her in-law's home, they demanded money in the name of the new child to permit her to reside there.

Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the present case, both parties are living happily at their workplace and leading their conjugal life and have filed joint compromise petition. The APP appearing for State also submitted that State has no objection to quashing the cognizance order as the matter has been amicably settled after compromise between the husband and wife. They jointly submitted that in the changed circumstances, the continuance of the criminal proceeding would be abuse of the process of the Court and since the offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable, the trial court is helpless to close the proceeding.

The Court, at the outset, noted that offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable and cited the Supreme Court's decision in B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors. (2003) and in Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs.Babita Raghuvanshi (2013) wherein the Court had examined the ambit and scope of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in quashing of the criminal proceeding in non-compoundable offences relating to matrimonial dispute.

It re-iterated that the High Court under Section 482 of the Code can quash the criminal proceedings where the disputes is of private nature and the compromise is entered into between the parties, who are willing to settle their differences amicably.

".....it is amply clear that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code which is unaffected by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Though the two powers are distinct and different yet the ultimate consequence may be same viz., acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment. Inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is seemingly unfettered but it has to be exercised in accordance with the limitation mentioned in the provision itself, i.e. (i) to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or (iii) to secure the ends of justice," the Court observed.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case into consideration and also the fact that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably, the Court was of the view that allowing the further proceedings to continue in the trial court would not be in the interest of justice as the same may lead to unnecessary harassment, agony and pain not only to the petitioners but also to the wife and would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Somesh Sharma & Ors. v The State of Bihar & Anr.

Click here to read/ download Judgement



Patna High CourtJustice Alok Kumar Pandey

Sheetal Joon