2. Shri Shoeb Khan, learned counsel appears on behalf of non-applicant no. 2.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
4. The present application is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the applicants seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 357/2025 registered with Police Station, Patur, Dist. Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
5. The brief facts of the case, as per the FIR, are as under:-
Applicant no.1 is the husband of the complainant/non-applicant no.2. Whereas applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law and applicant no.3 is the brother-in-law and applicant no.4 is the uncle-in- law of the complainant. The marriage of applicant no.1 and the complainant was solemnized on 21.10.2024. After the marriage, the complainant went to reside at her matrimonial house. However, the applicants did not treat the complainant properly. Applicant no.1 started harassing the complainant for not giving two wheeler as dowry in the marriage. Applicant nos.2 and 3 also asked her to bring dowry from her parental house. They also used to instigate applicant no.1 and due to this instigation applicant no.1 used to assault and verbally abuse the complainant. It is also alleged in the FIR that applicant no.1 also used to cast aspersions on her character. On 17.03.2025, after assaulting the complainant, applicant no.1 ousted the complainant and sent her to her parental house. Therefore, on the complaint lodged by the complainant, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the applicants.
6. Pursuant to the notice issued to the complainant/non-applicant no.2 is present in the Court today with her counsel and she is duly identified by her counsel. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered the ‘Vakalatnama’ and the affidavit-in-reply of the complainant across the bar, which is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. In the affidavit-in-reply, the complainant contended that the matter has been amicably settled between the applicants and herself and her marriage with applicant no. 1 is dissolved by consent. On enquiry, she reiterated the contents of the affidavit-in-reply and stated that she does not want to prosecute the applicants and has no objection if the FIR is quashed against the applicants.
7. The learend APP for the State objected the application stating that the offences registered in the FIR against the applicants are non-compoundable in nature therefore, the applicants and the complainant cannot settle the matter. Hence, sought rejection of the application.
8. With regards to the compoundability of offence, the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, [(2014) 6 SCC 466] has observed that “power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised “sparingly and with caution”.
9. The aforesaid FIR is lodged due to matrimonial discord and now the matter has been settled between the parties. Applicant no.1 and the complainant have decided to part their ways and both of them want to move ahead in their lives. Hence, continuance of prosecution may be a hindrance in leading peaceful life.
10. Reliance can also be placed on the decision in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., [(2003) 4 SCC 675], wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 14 has observed as under :
“14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860.”
11. In the present case, the dispute is of a private nature arising out of matrimonial discord. It also does not involve any issue affecting the society at large. In view of the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute and applicant no.1 and the complainant have resolved their dispute, the possibility of the prosecution culminating to conviction appears to be remote. The complainant and applicant no.1 have decided to part their ways to move on in their life. The continuation of prosecution will be hindrance in leading peaceful life by the complainant. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose.
12. At this stage, a reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], wherein the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under:—
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
13. Therefore, in my view, this is a fit case for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (old Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.) to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following orders:-
i) The application is allowed.
ii) FIR No. 357/2025 registered with Police Station, Patur, Dist. Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS is hereby quashed and set aside against the applicants subject to deposit of total costs of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) in the account of “Public Welfare Fund” with Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur having account no. 129712010001014 and IFSC Code UBIN0812978 by the applicants.
iii) Rule is made absolute in the above-said terms.
