R ARUN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in crime No.3 of 2005 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Woman Police Station, Teynampet, Chennai and quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and they were married on 02.06.2004. Due to difference of opinion and temporamental incompatibility they were separated on 28.03.2005. THE petitioner has moved the Family Court for divorce and the second respondent herein appeared before the court and filed her counter. In the mean while, the second respondent lodged a criminal complaint on 20.04.2008 against the petitioner, his father, mother, Maternal uncle, Sister Amudha and sister's husband for offences punishable under sections 498 A, 406 and 506(ii) I.P.C. R/w 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act . In the family court, settlement was arrived at, whereby the second respondent has received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) towards permanent alimony before the family court. She had agreed to withdraw the case initiated by her in crime no.3 of 2005 on the file of the first respondent. Mutual agreement for separation was filed before the family Court, which is as follows:"WHEREAS during the pendency of both cases, the parties entered into mediation and decided to move the petition for divorce by mutual consent under the conditions mentioned hereunder:THE First Party Arun has agreed to pay Rupees 6,00,000/-(Six Lakhs only) towards one time settlement of permanent alimony and maintenance to the second party, Radhika. THE said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) shall be given by way of demand draft at the time of enquiry in the mutual consent O.P. Demand Draft No.471597 dated 27.07.2006 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Alwarpet Branch, Chennai.THE Second party Radhika shall receive the demand draft at the time of recording evidence before the family Court.THE Second party Radhika has agreed to withdraw the police complaint and not to proceed with any other complaint against the first party or his family members.THE parties further undertake to restrain from interfering with each other life in any manner.THE parties shall abide by their undertaking without any deviation.".

(3.) IN the same decision, the Apex Court has held that in matrimonial matters, it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of disputes. It is also observed by the Apex Court in the very same decision that:"14....the hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of INdian penal Code.".