STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AHMADHUSEN MAHMAD KHALIL ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.10, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.1775/97. This Criminal Case came to be registered on the strength of the complaint lodged by the orig. complainant-Shahidunbibi. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are husband and mother-in-law of the orig. complainant respectively. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate found that the prosecution has failed in bringing home the charge of the offence allegedly committed by the respondents. Undisputedly, the orig. complainant had initiated maintenance proceeding in the Family Court, Ahmedabad, and in that proceeding, the parties have settled their dispute out of the Court and decided to withdraw the proceedings initiated and pending between them. This fact was brought to the notice of this Court when the State was granted leave to appeal, at that time the parties were asked to attend the Permanent Lok Adalat functioning in this High Court on the strength of some observations made by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and ors. v/s. State of Hariyana and ors., reported in 2003(2) GLH 351. In the cited case, the concerned High Court was moved under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and also under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the complaint filed against the husband and the in-laws; and it was placed before the Court that the parties have compounded the matter out the Court but as the offence punishable under Section 498(A) being non-compoundable and there was an element of demand of dowry, the request was turned down and, therefore, the parties had approached the Apex Court in the cited decision. The Apex Court has observed that the prayer to quash proceedings cannot be declined on the ground that the offence is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In light of the ratio of this very decision, the parties were relegated before the Permanent Lok Adalat and I am told that the parties have compounded their grievances and the orig. complainant has been divorced by the respondent no.1. Today the orig.complainant is present in the Court. She has tendered an affidavit sworn by her in presence of Notary on 30.3.2004. The orig. affidavit is taken on record. Mr. Alisher S. Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the orig.complainant, who had assisted the learned Public Prosecutor during the course of trial, identifies the orig.complainant and confirms that the parties have compounded the matter and she has given divorce. The maintenance proceeding initiated in the Family Court is also settled and now the same has been withdrawn.

(2.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Nandini Joshi has rightly pointed out that it would not be proper for the State to withdraw the present appeal. However, in view of the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court, if the orig.complainant is permitted to compound the offence, the State may not have formal objection or any type of resistance.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the order under challenge and the Court is satisfied that if the parties are permitted to place the fact of compromise on record, neither the public cause nor the interest of the State is likely to prejudice because the gravity emerging from the basic fs placed on record before the learned trial Court are not that grave and, therefore, the State is justified in taking a stand in favour of the orig. complainant and her husband i.e. respondent no.1. For short, the request to confirm the acquittal on the count of compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted in exercise of powers vested with the Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This is being done because I am afraid even on merits, the State could have succeeded in the present appeal. I am not commenting upon the merits of the case as the same are not otherwise warranted.