//
you're reading...
CHEQUE BOUNS CASE

When the PRC case arose out of family disputes can be quashed ? While exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings. It was also held in B.S.Joshi’s case ( 1 supra) that it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes.“ In State of Karanataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors[4]. considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non- compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in ‘negative’. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides”.

a photograph of anantha padmanabha swamy templ...

a photograph of anantha padmanabha swamy temple, located at ananthagiri hills,vikarabad,rangareddy district, andhra pradesh, india. తెలుగు: ఇది అనంత పద్మనాభ స్వామి గుడి యందలి గోపురము యొక్క ఛాయా చిత్రము. ఇది ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్ లోని రంగారెడ్డి జిల్లా యందలి ,వికారాబాద్ సమీపమున గల అనంతగిరి కొండలపై నున్నది. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

.A.P.HIGH COURT

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.1410 of 2012

 

(Dated : 30-03-2012)

Between:

Vishwaveer Singh Kasana and 4 others

….Petitioners

               A  n d

State of A.P., rep. by its

Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP

…Respondents

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.1410 of 2012

 

ORDER:

This criminal petition has been taken out by the accused in P.R.C.No.88 of 2011 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate,  Cyberabad,  Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, to quash the proceeding therein.

2.     Facts, in brief, are:-

The 2nd respondent-Smt. Poonam Singh is the wife of  Vishwaveer Singh Kasana-1st petitioner herein.  The marriage between the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner was performed on 16-05-2010 in Hyderabad, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs.  After the marriage, they lived together for a short period. Differences arose between them and they fell apart.  Ultimately, their disputes led to filing of cases and counter cases   and one such case is Crime No.1022 of 2010 of Rajendranagar P.S., registered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.  The 2nd respondent herein is the complainant in the said crime.  She filed report before the C.I of Police, Rajendranagar P.S., Ranga Reddy District alleging inter alia that she has been harassed on the ground of additional dowry and that her modesty has been outraged.  The S.I of Police, Rajendranagar P.S., after due investigation   filed charge sheet in the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.  Thereafter, the S.I of Police filed memo of alteration of Section of Law.  The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C.No.88 of 2011.  The petitioners stood charged for the offences under Sections 420, 354, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.  The petitioners approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.88 of 2011.

3.     Notice to the 2nd respondent came to be ordered on        6-2-2012.  The 2nd respondent received the notice and entered appearance through a counsel.

4.     The 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent entered into Memorandum of Understanding   whereunder, the 1st petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to the 2nd respondent towards permanent alimony. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the Memorandum of Understanding, dated 19th October, 2011 arrived at between the parties.

“    Whereas the Marriage between the First Party and the Second Party herein was performed on 16.05.2010 in Hyderabad as per Hindu Rites and Customs.  The said marriage is an arranged marriage.  After the marriage both the parties lived together   for a period of less than one month and thereafter differences arose between them, due to which   they are living separately till date.  In furtherance of the disputes, cases and counter cases are filed against each other in various courts.  The 1st party has filed C.C.No.1598/2010 against the 2nd Party and her parents and relatives on the file of  Judicial  Magistrate (1st Division)  Fetahabad, Agra, U.P., for the offences  u/S.506 IPC and the same is pending.  Yet another case is filed by the 1st Party  to this Memorandum  of Understanding  against the 2nd Party and her parents which is still  at a crime stage,  bearing  Crime No.65/2011 on the file of Police Station,  Fatehabad, Agra, U.P for the offences u/s. 323, 384, 456 and 506 IPC and the same is pending investigation.  The 2nd Party  to this Memorandum of Understanding  also filed  D.V.C.No.227/2010  on the file  of  Family Court,  City Civil Court, Hyderabad  and also a criminal case which is pending  committal  to the Sessions Court  bearing P.R.C.No.88/2011 against the  1st Party, his parents,  sister and brother-in-law  for the offences u/s.498-A , 420 and 354 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and the same are also pending.

Pending  the above cases due to the intervention of elders and well-wishers  of both the parties  they have agreed  to resolve the disputes  between them amicably  on the following terms and conditions.

…. …..     …..     ….                                  ………………………”

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioners sought for quashing of the proceedings in P.R.C.No.88 of 2011.

5.     The petitioners and the 2nd respondent appeared before the Court on 16-02-2012 and confirmed to the terms of the settlement.   The 2nd respondent again appeared on 27-2-2012  and informed the Court that disputes between her and the petitioners   have been settled  and steps have been taken for dissolution of the marriage between her and the 1st petitioner.    Her father Satyanarayana Singh who appeared before the Court   on 27-12-2012 informed the Court that the disputes between the parties have been settled and steps have been initiated for dissolution of the marriage.

6.     It is contended by   the learned counsel appearing for the parties that since the crime relatable to P.R.C.No.88 of 2011 arises out of a matrimonial dispute and since the parties   reached an understanding and settled their disputes amicably, ends of justice would be met by quashing the proceedings   in P.R.C.No.88 of 2011.  Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana[1]In the cited case, the Supreme Court quoted the earlier decision in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others[2] with approval.  It is held in the cited case that while exercising inherent power   of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.  Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may,  while taking into consideration  the special facts  of a  case also quash the proceedings.  It was also held in B.S.Joshi’s case ( 1 supra)  that it is the duty  of the Court to encourage  genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes.

7.     In G.V.Rao v. L.H.V.Prasad[3]the observations made by the Supreme Court are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial disputes by the Courts.  It was said that:

“ There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The 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.”

8.     Since   the petitioners and the 2nd respondent stated in chorus that they settled the disputes among themselves and pursuant to the settlement, an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-  has been paid   by the 1st petitioner  to the 2nd respondent, permitting  the proceedings to continue  in Court  would  not serve any purpose, rather  the ends of justice  will be appropriately  met if the proceedings  in P.R.C.No.88 of 2011 are quashed  in exercise of inherent powers  under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

9.     Before parting with the case, I may reproduce    paragraph (10)  of the  judgment in B.S.Joshi  1 supra) and  it is thus:-

“        In State of Karanataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors[4]. considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non- compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in ‘negative’. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides”.

10.    The material brought on record indicates that the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent–de facto complainant decided to snap their relationship and settle in life.  In that view of the matter, it is expedient and in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.88 of 2011.

11.    Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in P.R.C.No.88 of 2011 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.

_____________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Dt. 30-03-2012

CS

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criminal Petition No.1410 of 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Dated : 30-03-2012)


[1] AIR 2003 SC 1386

[2] (1988) 1 SCC 692

[3] 2000(3) SCC 693

[4] (1977) 2 SCC 699

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: