UMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite valid service of notice.

(2.) THE prayer in this application is for quashing the order of cognizance dated 5.10.2004 as also the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2067(C) of 2004 passed by the SDJM, Patna under Sections 498A, 494 of the Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The opposite party no. 2 filed the complaint case. Thereafter a suit for restitution for conjugal rights was filed by the husband. It is then only that a joint compromise petition vide Case No. 258/ 2005 for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed and which was so granted by order dated 19.1.2006. An application has then been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 before the court below that she was no more desirous of pursuing the complaint case and prefers to pursue her own life afresh. Presumably for that reason the opposite party no. 2 has lost interest in the present application also and has chosen not to appear despite valid service of notice. The Supreme Court in AIR 2003 SC 1386 (B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.) was considering the rejection of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising out of a matrimonial dispute under Sections 498A and 406 of the Penal Code. The wife filed a petition that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temporary difference and implied imputations and that the dispute with the husband had been settled and they had agreed for mutual divorce. While the parties were agreeable the State opposed the application. The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court noticed that though offence under Section 498A of the Penal Code was not compoundable nevertheless in the changed social scenario it held that the High Court should not have refrained from exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such prosecution. It was also noticed that in view of stand of the wife the likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence did not arise as she would not be there to support the imputations. The Court then framed the question that in such a situation where after the marriage had been dissolved by divorce by mutual consent would there be a possibility of conviction. If not, would it be appropriate to decline exercise of powers to quash on the ground that the offence was not compoundable. The question was answered in the negative holding that it was the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial dispute and any other view would by hyper - technical and counterproductive.

(3.) THE entire prosecution in Complaint Case No. 2067(C) of 2004 is quashed and this application is allowed.