ABHAY AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Ramgarh P.S case No. 367 of 2002 (G.R. No. 2387 of 2002) registered under Sections 498A, 395, 307, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT does appear that a complaint was field wherein allegation was levelled by the complainant -opposite party No. 2 that after getting married when she came to her in -laws ' place, the husband and other members of the in -laws ' family started subjecting her to torture on account of non -fulfillment of the demand of dowry and that the other day, she was assaulted brutally as she had failed to bring dowry from her parents. The said complaint was sent before the concerned police station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration and investigation of a case and accordingly, the case was registered.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the complainant also admitted that the matter has been compromised and that the complainant is residing happily with her husband. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it does appear that the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 on arriving at some settlement did file a joint compromise petition in this case which has been registered under Sections 498A, 395, 307,406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code most of which offences are non -compoundable but keeping in view the ratio laid down in a case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre [ (1988) 1 SCC 692] as well as in a case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another (supra), it would be futile to allow the petitioner to undergo rigor of the trial when there is no possibility of the petitioner being convicted for the reason that the matter has been compromised. The Hon 'ble Supreme Court in a case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre(supra) has been pleased to hold that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue where, in my opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. The court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceeding.