NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') for quashing First Information Report dated August 9, 1980 under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Rohtak, and subsequent proceedings in the Court based on the said First Information Report in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak.

(2.) MRS. Neelam, respondent No. 2 was married to petitioner No. 1 on June 5, 1983. They have a son born on September 24, 1984. On account of some misunderstanding and unfortunate circumstances, respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home on May 7, 1988. She made an application to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti Dowry Cell, New Delhi, on the basis of which the aforesaid First Information Report was registered on August 9, 1988 (Copy of the First Information Reports Annexure 'p-1' ). After investigation, the police challaned the petitioners, who are husband, father, brother and mother of the husband, respectively. The case is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, as already stated. Due to intervention of some well-wishers and friends, there was repprochment between the parties as a result of which respondent No. 2 along with her son came back and resumed living with petitioner No. 1 in the matrimonial home. She made an affidavit (Annexure 'p-2') on December 16, 1989. A similar affidavit (Annexure 'p-3') was made by her father. Both the parties to the marriage made a joint application oh February 16, 1990 (Annexure 'p-4') to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for withdrawal of the aforesaid case. By order dated February 24, 1990, (Annexure 'p-5'), the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application observing that whereas the offence under. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was compoundable with permission of the Court, offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was not compoundable and the case could not, therefore, be disposed of in terms of the compromise. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have moved this petition for quashing the First Information Report and the subsequent proceedings.

(3.) BOTH the parties along with their child are present in Court, Respondent No. 2 is living happily with her husband. In view of the narration of facts given above, the compromise between the parties is clearly genuine. In view of the compromise, there is hardly any chance of the trial ending in a conviction. After all, conviction requires evidence in support of the allegations made in the initial report. In the totality of facts are circumstances of this case, it is clearly in the interest of the parties as also the society in general that such cases ought not be allowed to be continued in the Court. It will be sheer wastage of public time if the formality of the trial is gone through. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice 'pardeep Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. , 1988 (2) CLR 694 in which on a genuine compromise having been entered into between the parties, the inherent powers of the Court were invoked and proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code were quashed while permitting composition of the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The case in hand is on a better footing in the sense that here the parties have entered the repprochment and have resumed living together. In the hope that they will continue to live together and avoid all chances of quarrel in future, I find that it is eminently a fit case for the exercise of extraordinary power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The aforesaid First Information Report and the subsequent proceedings based thereon under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are hereby quashed. With regard to the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the parties are allowed to compound the same.