DIPALI CHAKRABARTI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. for quashing of the F.I.R. lodged by one Purnima Chakrabarti, registered as Brajarajnagar P. S. Case No. 5, dated 7.1.1999 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 36/1999, pending in the Court of the S.D.J.M., J ha rsu g u d a.

(2.) The essential facts stated in the application are as follows : The marriage between Purnima Chakrabarti, the informant and present petitioner No. 3, Partha Pratim Chakrabarti. was solemnized on 5.2.1998 at Gumadera within Belpahar P.S. At the time of her marriage the petitioners allegedly demanded cash of Rs. 40,000/- and accordingly the parents of the informant had given on two instalments, one on 25.1.1998, Rs. 20,000/- and the balance Rs. 20,000/- on 27.1.1998. They had also given two VIP suit-cases and other marriage presentations. Despite this, their relationship did not continue cordially and there was frequent bickering misunderstanding and quarrel between the two spouses as a result of which they fell out from each other. Sometimes, petitioner No. 3 was found drunk and ill-treated, the informant by beating and torturing her. The torture continued unabated as a result of which the informant had to leave the matrimonial house and took shelter with her parents. She was constantly threatened to be done away with. It is further stated that even after the intervention of well wishers and friends of both the spouses, their relationship did not continue well. Since harassment and torture upon the informant became unbearable and intolerable she had to file a report which was treated as F.I.R. as per Annexure-1 and on the basis of such F.I.R., a case was registered under Sees. 498-A 307, 324, 504/34, I.P.C., and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This application by the mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband of the informant has been filed seeking for quashing of the. F.I.R. as well as the criminal proceeding before the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda. There has been an interim order of stay passed by this Court regarding continuance of the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 36/99.

(3.) During the pendency of this case, certain developments have taken place. Both the parties filed an application for mutual divorce which was registered as T.S. No. 54/2000 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Sambalpur on 15.3.2000. In the said suit, after expiry of about a year, the learned Civil Judge passed a decree of mutual divorce on 2.3.2001. Mr. Palit, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that neither party has filed appeal against the said decree of divorce before this Court and the decree of divorce was allowed to be treated as final. In the meantime, the informant is said to have married for the second time. The informant and her parents have filed three separate affidavits in this case indicating that they have ironed out their differences and the petitioners had agreed to pay Rs. 1,01,000/- (Rs. 96,000/- in cash and Rs. 5,000/- in the shape of fixed deposit certificate in the name of the informant). In the above backdrop, Mr. Palit for the petitioners contends that the criminal proceeding should be quashed even though the offences alleged are, said to be non-compoundable in nature. Mr. Palit has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Basanta Kumar Baral and others, etc. etc. v. State of Orissa and others. The Division Bench while interpreting the provisions of Secs. 320 and 482, Cr. P.C. observed as follows: 15 In the background of what has been stated above, it is clear that Section 482 of the Code can be utilized to secure the ends of justice in cases where compounding is not permissible under Sec. 320 of the Code. But it is not to be exercised in a routine manner. As was observed by the Apex Court in Krishnan and anothers case [1977 (1) Crimes, 97 (SC) (supra), it can be utilised to meet the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of law. It has to be sparingly used and only when the Court is satisfied that by exercise of it needless multiplicity of proceedings, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings can be avoided, it can be done. Merely because an affidavit or petition has been filed by the parties that they have sorted out their differences, that would not suffice. In every case, the Court has to be satisfied that the compromise, was voluntary and was not the result of any intimidation, threat, coercion or undue influence. In large number of cases it is noticed that compromises are obtained by intimidation, show of muscle and money power. In cases where there is scope for a Suspicion that apparent is not the real, Court should not exercise power under Sec. 482. That would not be step for securing ends of justice, but on the other hand it would amount to destruction of credibility of the institution, and its ultimate result would be ignoble and immoral. Notwithstanding the compromise, the Court should ask the parties to appear before the lower Court for verification of the statements regarding compromise and the investigating agency should be directed to submit a report expeditiously, in order to avoid unnecessary delay in the trial and protraction of proceedings. Court has to lift the veil of so-called restoration of fellow feeling, desire to wipe out differences and clearance of misunderstanding. The truth has to be unravelled. Only when the Court is satisfied about the bona fides, then it can entertain the prayer to exercise inherent power. Normally relevant materials are to be scanned through which would not be an easy job. Therefore, the correctness of the statements regarding compromise can be more effectively examined by the trial Court and if necessary trial can be taken up immediately to put an end to the litigation. Only when the High Court is satisfied about the, genuineness of the compromise beyond shadow of doubt, it can exercise inherent power. The Court in such matters has to adopt strong attitude and no liberal attitude is to be shown, as there is every possibility of the victim being made to suffer further on account of machinations by the offender. Our answer, therefore, is that there is no bar for exercise of power under Section 482 in respect of a case which involves non- compoundable offence in terms of Section 320 of the Code. But the power has to be most sparingly used in appropriate cases. It has to be the exception and not the rule.T Thus the following legal position boils down from the aforesaid judgment: