JITENDRA MANOHAR DIXIT Vs. GOPAL BABULAL UPADYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, heard forthwith.

(2.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners seek quashing of and setting aside First Information Report and consequently, proceedings in Criminal Case No. 589 of 1999 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. The case of the petitioners is that their marriage was solemnized on 24-12-1998 and due to the misunderstanding between the petitioners and family members of the petitioners, several cases were filed. According to the petitioners, since the matter is compromised and as the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked to secure the ends of justice. In Criminal Cases No. 589 of 1999 complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 who is brother of petitioner No. 2 for offence under sections 323, 395, 498-A, 506, 147 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Case No. 797 of 99 was filed by respondent No. 2 who is father of petitioner No. 1 for offences under sections 323, 427, 506, 147 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides these criminal cases, the petitioner No. 2 has filed a petition for decree of nullity of marriage which is pending before the Family Court and the matter was compromised and both parties agreed to withdraw the allegations against each other and further agreed to file joint petition under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner No. 1 agreed to deposit Rs. 2,50,000/- towards past, present and future maintenance as permanent settlement and has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,21,000/ -. The consent terms have been filed by the parties before the Family Court in Petition No. 88 of 1999. It is further alleged that the respondents 1 and 2 had given undertaking that they will extend co-operation to withdraw the criminal complaint. The offences under sections 498-A and 395 of the Indian Penal Code are not compoundable. Therefore, according to the parties, the matter cannot be finally settled and as such, inherent powers should be exercised by this Court to avoid harassment as also for the good of the society at large. According to them, this would also save valuable and precious time of this Honourable Court.

(3.) THIS petition is opposed by the State (respondent No. 3) on the ground that the offence under sections 498-A and 395 IPC of the Indian Penal Code are not compoundable and the petition is liable to be rejected.