JITENDRA RAGHUVANSHI & ORS.versusBABITA RAGHUVANSHI & ANR.

                [2013] 2 S.C.R. 921


           JITENDRA RAGHUVANSHI & ORS.                      A
                            v.
             BABITA RAGHUVANSHI & ANR.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2013)
                    MARCH 15, 2013
                                                            B
   [P. SATHASIVAM, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND
                KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.482 and 320 -
Quashing of criminal proceedings in non-compoundable C
offences relating to matrimonial disputes - Ambit and scope
of the inherent powers of the High Courts uls.482 CrPC - Duty
of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial
disputes - Held: High Court in exercise of its inherent powers
can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint ih D
appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice - s.320
CrPC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court u/
s.482 CrPC.

     Question relating to the ambit and scope of the
 inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482       E
 CrPC in quashing of the criminal proceedings in non-
 compoundable offences relating to matrimonial disputes
 arose for consideration in the present appeal.

     Allowing the appeal, the Court                         F

       HELD: 1.1. It is the duty of the courts to encourage
  genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly,
  when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the
  offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to G
  matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the
. parties have settled the same amicably and without any
  pressure, for the purpose of securing ends of justice,
  Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of
                           921                              H
    922    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent
    criminal proceedings. [Para 12) [929-B-D]
        1.2. There has been an outburst of matrimonial
  disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage
  occupies an important place and it has an important role
8
  to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be
  made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable
  them to settle down in life. and live peacefully. If the
  parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their
  disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
C fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete
  justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be
  less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction.
  It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 CrPC
  should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection
D only when the court is convinced, on the basis of material
  on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue
  would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the
  ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be
  quashed. Also exercise of such power would depend
E upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has
  to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real
  and substantial justice for the administration of which
  alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to
  encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes
F and Section 482 CrPC enables the High Court and Article
  142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such
  orders. [Para 13) [929-D-H; 930-A]
       1.3. The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers
  can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint
G in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice
  and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers
  of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. [Para 14)
  [930-B-C]
H
    JITENDRA RAGHUVANSHI & ORS. v. BABITA               923
             RAGHUVANSHI & ANR.
      2. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that after A
filing of a complaint in respect of the offences punishable
under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the parties arrived
at a mutual settlement and the complainant-wife also has
sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants
(husband and his relatives). That was the position before B
the trial Court as well as before the High Court in a petition
filed under Section 482 CrPC. A perusal of the impugned
order of the High Court shows that because the mutual
settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non-
compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a wrong c
premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed
the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. A perusal of
the petition before the High Court shows that the
application filed by the appellants was not for
compounding of non-compoundable offences but for the
                                                               0
purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. [Para 10]
[928-D-G]
     3. The inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S.
Joshi case, this Court has upheld the powers of the High E
Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal
proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a
compromise is entered into between the parties who are
willing to settle their differences amicably. The said
decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and F
the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal
proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at. The
impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and
the proceedings in the Criminal Case pending on the file
of Judicial Magistrate are quashed. [Paras 11, 14] [928- G
H; 929-A-B; 930-C]

    B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another
(2003) 4 SCC 675: 2003 (2) SCR 1104 - held applicable.

    State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC         H
    924       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 2 S.C.R.


A    335: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259; Madhu Limaye vs. State of
     Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 (1) SCR 749; Surendra
     Nath Mohanty & Anr. vs. State of Orissa (1999) 5 SCC 238:
     1999 (2) SCR 1005; Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special
     Judicial Magistrate & Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 749: 1997 (5) Suppl.
B    SCR 12 - referred to.

                           Case Law Reference:

      2003 (2) SCR 1104               held applicable Paras 9, 11
      1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259         referred to       Para 9
c
      1978 (1) SCR 749                referred to        Para 9
      1999 (2) SCR 1005               referred to        Para 9
      1997 (5) Suppl. SCR 12          referred to       Para 9
D
         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
     No. 447 of 2013.

         From the Judgment & Order dated 04.07.2012 of the High
    Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Indore in M. Cr. C. No. 2877
E   of 2012.

          Preetika Dwivedi, Abhishek Chaudhary for the Appellants.

          S.K. Dueby, B.P. Singh, Abhimanyu Singh, Sumit Gaur,
    Mohit K., Yogesh Tiwari, C.D. Singh, Rahul, Mukti Chaudhary
F   for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

G         2. The important question that falls for determination in the
    instant appeal is about the ambit and scope of the inherent
    powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of
    Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") in quashing of
    the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences
H • relating to matrimonial disputes.
    JITENDRA RAGHUVANSHI & ORS. v. BABITA                925
     RAGHUVANSHI & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     3. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and A
order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.CR.C. No. 2877 of 2012,
whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the
appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code for quashing
of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending in B
the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class I, Indore.

    4. Brief facts:

     a) The marriage of Jitendra Raghuvanshi (Appellant No.
1 herein) and Babita Raghuvanshi, respondent-wife, was C
solemnized on 22.02.2002 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After
the marriage, the parties were residing together as husband
and wife at District Baitul, M.P. On 05.03.2003, an FIR being
No. 172 of 2003 was registered at P.S. Sarni, Dist. Baitul for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 read with D
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC')
at the instance of Babita Raghuvanshi - respondent-wife owing
to the harassment and torture meted out to her in the
matrimonial home by her husband and his relatives. A Criminal
Case being No. 4166 of 2011 was also registered against the E
appellants herein for the offences punishable under Sections
498A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.

      b) During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, in the
year 2012, with the help and intervention of family members, F
friends and well-wishers, the parties amicably settled their
differences by way of mutual settlement. Pursuant to the same,
on 03.04.2012, a compromise/settlement application was filed
for dropping of the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.
4166 of 201.1 and FIR No. 172 of 2003 dated 05.03.2003 G
before the trial Court. Respondent-wife also filed an affidavit
stating that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
against the appellants. However, by order dated 03.04.2012,
learned trial Judge rejected the said application.
                                                                 H
    926     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2013] 2 S.C.R.


A        c) Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2012, on
    09.04.2012, the appellants herein filed an application being
    M.CR.C. No. 2877 of 2012 before the High Court invoking its
    inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
    criminal proceedings launched against them. The High Court,
B   by impugned order dated 04.07.2012, dismissed the
    application filed by the appellants herein stating that the court
    has no power to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of
    offences under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC since both are
    non-compoundable.
c        d) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed
    the present appeal by way of special leave.

        5. Heard Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
    appellants and Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel for
D   Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Rahul, learned counsel for
    Respondent No.1.

         6. The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 of
    the Code has been examined by this Court In a catena of
    earlier decisions. In the present case, we are concerned about
E
    interference by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under
    Section 482 in relation to matrimonial disputes.

         7. It is not in dispute that matrimonial disputes have been
    on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of
F   complaints under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC not only
    against the husband but also against the relatives of the
    husband. The question is when such matters are resolved
    either by the wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or
    by mutual settlement of other pending disputes for which both
G   the sides approached the High Court and jointly prayed for
    quashing-of the criminal proceedings or the FIR or complaint
    by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 of IP8, whether the
    prayer can be declined on the sole ground that since_ the
    offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the
H
    JITENDRA RAGHUVANSHI & ORS. v. BABITA                     927
    RAGHUVANSHI & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Code, .it would be impermissible for the Court to quash the         A
criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.

     8. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand subsequent
to the filing of the criminal complaint under Sections 498A and
406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, B
1961, with the help and intervention of family members, friends
and well-wishers, the parties concerned have amicably settled
their differences and executed a compromise/settlement.
Pursuant thereto, the appellants filed the said compromise
before the trial Court with a request to place the same on
record and to drop the criminal proceedings against the C
appellants herein. It is also not in dispute that in addition to
the mutual settlement arrived at by the parties, respondent-wife
has also filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue
the criminal proceedings against the appellants and fully
supported the contents of the settlement deed. It is the D
grievance of the appellants that not only the trial Court rejected
such prayer of the parties but also the High Court failed to
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code only on
the ground that the criminal proceedings relate to the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC which are non- E
compoundable in nature.

     9. Learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our attention
to the decision of this Court in B. S. Joshi and Others vs. State
of Haryana and Another, .(2003) 4 SCC 675, submitted that F
in an identical circumstance, this Court held that the High Court
in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 can quash
criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the dispute
is entirely private and the parties are willing to settle their
disputes amicably. It is not in dispute that the facts in B. S. Joshi G.
(supra) are identical and the nature of the offence and the
question of law involved are almost similar to the one in hand.
After considering the law laid down in State of Haryana vs.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and explaining the
decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye vs. State of H
    928       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A   Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Surendra Nath Mohanty &
    Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238 and Pepsi Foods
    Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5
    SCC 749, this Court held:

          "8. . ...... We are, therefore, of the view that if for the
B
          purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR
          becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a qar to
          the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a
          different matter depending upon the facts and
          circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not
c         such a power."

    Considering matrimonial matters, this Court also held:

          "12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are
D         evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage
          genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes."

         10. As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of
    a complaint in respect of the offences punishable under
    Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant case,
E   arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant also has
    sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That
    was the position before the trial Court as well as before the
    High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. A
    perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that
F   because the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties
    relate to non-compoundable offence, the court proceeded on
    a wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed
    the petition filed under Section 482. A perusal of the petition
    before the High Court shows that the application filed by the
G   appellants was not for compounding of non-compoundable
    offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal
    proceedings ..

        11. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section
H   482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B. S. Joshi (supra),
      JITENDRA RAGHUVANSHI & ORS. v. BABITA                       929
      RAGHUVANSHI & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under                  A
Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is
of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between
the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably.
We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable
to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed              B
the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived
at.
      12. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage
gern,1ine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when         C
the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences
are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes
and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same
amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose
of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not
be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint           D
or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

      13. There has been an outburst of matrirnonial disputes
in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an
 important place and it has an important role to play in the              E
society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest
of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life
and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead
of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice     F
in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant
in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that
the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly
and with circumspection only when the court is convinced, on
the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings            G
to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or
that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to
be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case
and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do            H
    930      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone
    the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine
    settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the
    Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the
    Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.
B
       14. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the
  High Court in exercise of its i'nherent powers can quash the
  criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases
  in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code
  does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under
C Section 482 of the Code. Under these circumstances, we set
  aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated
  04.07.2012 passed in M.CR.C. No. 2877 of 2012 and quash
  the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending
  on the file of Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Indore.
D
       15. The appeal is allowed.

    B.B.B.                                           Appeal allowed.