The Patna High Court held that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not bar the quashing of a matrimonial dispute under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in cases involving non-compoundable offences under Sections 498(A) and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, provided the parties have amicably resolved the matter.
The ruling came while considering a petition seeking to quash the Trial Court’s order taking 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 wife alleged that the petitioner and others demanded a four-wheeler as dowry and harassed her when the demand was not fulfilled. She also claimed that her husband forced her to undergo an abortion; however, she eventually gave birth to a female child. Later, when she attempted to return to her in-laws’ home, they allegedly demanded money in the child’s name as a condition for allowing her to stay.
The petitioners’ counsel informed the Court that during the pendency of the case, the husband and wife reconciled, are now living together happily at their workplace, and have filed a joint compromise petition. The State’s APP also stated that the State had no objection to quashing the cognizance order, as the dispute had been amicably resolved. Both parties contended that continuing the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the Court’s process, particularly since the trial court cannot close the case due to the non-compoundable nature of the offence under Section 498A IPC.
The Court started by noting that offences under Section 498A of the IPC are non-compoundable. It referenced the Supreme Court’s decisions in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2003) and Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi (2013), which explored the extent of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable matrimonial disputes.
The Court reaffirmed that the High Court has the authority to exercise its powers under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings in private disputes where the parties have amicably settled their differences and reached a compromise.
“…..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.
In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the amicable resolution of the dispute between the parties, the Court ruled that allowing the trial court proceedings to continue would not serve the interests of justice. It observed that such proceedings could lead to unnecessary harassment, distress, and suffering for both the petitioners and the wife, constituting an abuse of the Court’s process.
As a result, the petition was granted.
