D.K. Sinha, J.@mdashPetitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the order dated 20.04.2011 by which the
Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad after enquiry of C.P. Case No. 533 of 2011 found a prima facie case under Sections 498A/313/406/420/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against them.
2. The complainant-opposite party No. 2- Rabindra Kumar Lala presented the Complaint Petition No. 533 of 2011 before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad narrating that his daughter Neha Lala was married to the Petitioner Romit Kumar on 20.01.2011 according to the
Hindu rites and rituals at Dhanbad and at that time it was apprised to him that the groom was engineer in Electronics and Electrical Engineering and
had also completed M.B.A. from Pune. On the eve of marriage sufficient amount of cash and jewelleries were given to the groom side. After
marriage, his daughter went to her matrimonial home at Ranchi. In the reception party which was held on 02.02.2011 the accused persons
demanded Maruti SX4 Car and conveyed that they would visit Dhanbad on 12.01.2011 for collecting the amount of dowry which was due to him.
On 11.02.2011, the bride Neha Lala came to Dhanbad to appear in the GATE examination where she explained to her parents that her entire
ornaments and other valuables were retained by her motherinlaw i.e. Petitioner No. 3 The Petitioners visited Dhanbad on 12.02.2011 as per
shedule and demanded Rs. 50,000/alleged to be due to the complainant and further reiterated their demand of Maruti SX4. During stay at her
matrimonial home Neha Lala became pregnant whereupon accused No. 3 i.e. motherinlaw threatened that Neha Lala would not be allowed to
continue her pregnancy unless the dowry that has demanded would be fulfilled. She suffered mental and physical torture in various ways at the
hands of the accused Petitioners. She developed pain in her uterus in the month of March but she was left uncared. Some sort of medicine was
administered by her motherinlaw, as a result of which her pain aggravated. The Petitioners then brought her to Dhanbad but taking into
consideration the serious condition, the complainant took her back to Ranchi at her matrimonial home for that the complainantfather of Neha Lala
was scolded and their held exchange of wrods. In the same sequences, Neha was dragged and badly assaulted by the accused persons. She was
then brought to Dhanbad where she developed severe bleeding and her condition deteriorated. She was removed to Jalan Memorial Hospital
where she was advised for complete abortion for her survival and accordingly evacuation was effected at the advise of doctor.
3. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed counteraffidavit During course of argument on behalf of the parties, the Court
proposed and asked as to whether there was chance of compromise between the parties in view of the facts and circumstances of the case that the
father of the bride Neha had instituted the instant case but a separate suit for dissolution of marriage was filed by the husbandPetitioner under
Setion 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi.
4. Serious objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that in the Matrimonial Suit filed by the husbandPetitioner No.
2 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi serious allegation detrimental to character was levelled against Nehal Lala by questioning her
fidelity that she was bearing pregnancy even during time of her marriage and by taking such plea the husband had filed suit for dissolution of
marriage. However, on the request of counsel for the parties, adjournments were given and finally both the parties came to terms and filed I.A. No.
1278 of 2011 by way of joint compromise petition wherein modalities of compromise were enumerated, as follows:
(i) The husbandPetitioner No. 2 and the daughter of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 decided to settle the dispute for getting separation from
each other by a decree of divorce with their mutual consent by filing a petition u/s 13(1)(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge,
Ranchi.
(ii) In view of the above terms of compromise, Petitioner No. 2husband agreed without any duress to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 12.5 lacs by
way of three demand drafts in favour of Neha Lala and accordingly the same were delivered to her in the manner as contained in Para 6 of the
compromise petition (I.A. No. 1278 of 2011). That amount of Rs. 12.5 lacs was paid to Neha Lala and accepted by her as one time permanent
alimony and that she would not claim any alimony or any amount whatsoever from the Petitioner No. 2husband or members of his family in future.
It was admitted that entire Stridhan of Neha Lala has been returned to her however it was specified that the Petitioners have also taken back their
belongings whatsoever they had given to Neha Lala at the time of her marriage to their full satisfaction.
5. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 requested before this Court that in view of the compromise, he would file withdrawal petition for the
withdrawal of C.P. Case No. 533 of 2011.
6. Alternatively, it is requested that the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for quashment of C.P. Case No. 533 of 2011 may be allowed on
the basis of the compromise petition. In the joint compromise petition (I.A. No. 1278 of 2011), Petitioner No. 2 agreed to withdraw the
Matrimonial Suit No. 140 of 2011 filed by him against Neha Lala under Sections 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act however with his declaration
that the suit was filed under misconception of fact and there was bonafide mistake on his part and that he would withdraw such matrimonial suit
positively by 16.07.2011 otherwise, it would amount to giving incorrect statement on oath before this Court. It was mutually agreed by Neha Lala
and Petitioner No. 2Romit Kumar to take divorce from each other with mutual consent by filing petition u/s 13(i)(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act
and the party concerned would incur their own expenses in so doing. Finally, it is contended that the dispute between the parties are purely
personnel in nature arising out of matrimonial dispute, as such parties may be allowed to compromise the case.
7. Finally the Petitioners and the opposite party No. 2 requested quashment of the criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. Case No. 533 of 2011
pending in the Court of Shri B.K. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in terms of the compromise and the principles laid down in the B.S. Joshi
and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, wherein the Apex Court observed,
In the present case, the wife 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. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. So it would not
be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound noncompoundable offences.
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. Further, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, it was held that while exercising
inherent power of quashing u/s 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. The special features in such matrimonial matters
are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I find that since the Petitioners including the husband have settled their disputes with the
complainant opposite party No. 2 in terms of the modalities in the joint compromise petition and they have agreed to withdraw the case/suit
instituted against each other, I find some special feature in this case that in the given circumstances the prosecution would not be able to secure
conviction of the Petitioners.
9. It was observed in B.S. Joshi''s Case(Supra) ""Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are 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"".
10. Relying upon the decision referred to herein before and finding that this case is similarly situated with special features, the entire criminal
proceeding of the Petitioners arising out of Complainant Petition No. 533 of 2011 pending before Shri B.K. Pandey. Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Dhanbad is quashed in terms of the compromise laid down in I.A. No. 1278 of 2011. Accordingly, this petition and the I.A. No. 1278 of
2011 are allowed as indicated above.