Manoj K. Tiwari, J
1. By means of this criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant has sought quashing of charge sheet dated 09.04.2008 as well as
entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1645 of 2008, under Section 498-A, 323 & 504 of I.P.C., pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate Ist, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:
Applicant Nandlal is the husband of respondent no. 2 who married as per Hindu rites on 03.02.2006. Out of the wedlock, a son was also born on
02.12.2006. Subsequently, the relations between the applicant and respondent no. 2 became strained and they parted ways. Ultimately, an F.I.R. was
lodged against the applicant and his family members on 11.07.2007 pursuant to order passed by learned A.C.J.M., Dehradun under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the
Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against applicant under Section 323, 504 and 498-A IPC on 09.04.2008. Learned Magistrate took cognizance
vide order dated 15.12.2008 and summoned the applicant to face trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, during the course of trial, parties arrived at a settlement and a compromise deed was executed on
29.05.2013, which is part of record as Annexure No. 5 to this criminal misc. application. He further submits that the said compromise deed was duly
signed by complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) as well as the applicant in the presence of witnesses.
4. A perusal of the compromise deed reveals that the parties had agreed to get all cases pending before Civil/Criminal Courts, disposed of in terms of
compromise. It was further provided that the husband (applicant) will pay a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- to the wife (respondent no. 2).
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that amount of permanent alimony has been paid by the applicant in terms of the compromise and the
application filed against the applicant under Domestic Violence Act was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of respondent no. 2. Learned
counsel for the applicant further submits that respondent no. 2, in her cross examination in Criminal Case No. 1645 of 2008 under Section 323, 504 &
498-A I.P.C., has stated before Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun that she was never harassed for dowry and she had made the complaint
on the instigation of certain persons.
Statement of respondent no. 2 is Annexure No. 8 to the criminal misc. application, which was recorded on 28.04.2014.
6. A perusal of the said statement indicates that, during cross examination, respondent no. 2 has admitted that she has entered into compromise with
the applicant and divorce has also been granted pursuant to the compromise. She also stated that she does not want to prosecute the applicant or his
family members any further.
7. This Court vide order dated 19.07.2019 had directed the parties to remain present before this Court on the next date fixed i.e. 26.07.2019. On
26.07.2019, the applicant was present; while, respondent no. 2 was not present. Subsequently, on 09.08.2019, respondent no. 2 remained present in
Court and she admitted that dispute between her and the applicant has been amicably settled and she does not want to prosecute the applicant and his
family members, however, respondent no. 2 stated that she had never deposed before the learned trial Court that she was not harassed for dowry by
the applicant or his family members. She stood by other statement made by her during cross examination.
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 299, while dealing with
a similar controversy, has held as follows:
“6. From the above narrated facts, it is clear that in the compromise petition filed before the Family Court, the appellant admitted that she has
received Stridhan and maintenance in lump sum and that she will not be entitled to maintenance of any kind in future. She also undertook to withdraw
all proceedings civil and criminal filed and initiated by her against the respondents within one month of the compromise deed which included the
complaint under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act from which complaint this appeal arises. In
the said compromise, the respondent- husband agreed to withdraw his petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the
Senior Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and also agreed to give a consent divorce as sought for by the appellant.
7. It is based on the said compromise the appellant obtained a divorce as desired by her under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial
compliance of the terms of the compromise she withdrew the criminal case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code but for reasons
better known to her she did not withdraw that complaint from which this appeal arises. That apart after the order of the High Court quashing the said
complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, she has chosen to file this appeal. It is in this background, we will have to appreciate the merits of
this appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the above-
mentioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the respondent-husband and his family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump
sum maintenance and her Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the background of the fact that pursuant to the
compromise deed the respondent-husband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted thus had performed his part of the obligation under the
compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of the obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section 125. It
is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the compromise deed
was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise which
statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the
appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of
the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises
was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.
9. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal
proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do complete justice, we should while
dismissing this appeal also quash proceedings arising from the Criminal Case No.Cr.No.224/2003 registered in Police Station, Bilaspur, (Distt.Rampur)
filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein. It is ordered
accordingly. The appeal is disposed of.â€
9. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and have entered into a compromise, which fact is not disputed by respondent no. 2, therefore,
no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
10. In view of the settlement arrived between the complainant and the applicant, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice, which would tantamount to abuse of process of law.
11. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice, this criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Impugned charge sheet
dated 9.04.2008 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1645 of 2008, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist, Vikas
Nagar, Dehradun, are hereby quashed.
