Safiya Malik

The High Court of Orissa, Single Bench of Justice Savitri RathoJustice Savitri Ratho, quashed criminal proceedings against a husband and his family members who had been charged with dowry demand and cruelty towards his wife. The Court held that since the parties had mutually consented to dissolve their marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, continuing the criminal case would serve no useful purpose. The wife, though served notice, did not appear to oppose the quashing petition filed by the husband and his relatives.

A husband, his brother, and his sister-in-law filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the learned SDJM, Puri. The proceedings had been registered under Sections 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, arising from a complaint filed by the wife.

Also Read: Auction Sale Under Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Framework Void Ab Initio On Failure To Deposit Full Purchase Price Within Prescribed Period: Supreme Court

The complainant-wife alleged that after their marriage solemnized on 16 February 2005 as per Hindu rites and customs, the petitioners demanded a dowry of Rs. 5,00,000 for business purposes. It was further alleged that when the complainant's family could only arrange Rs. 2,00,000 and failed to provide the remaining amount, she was threatened with being doused in kerosene and set on fire, with a further threat of staging it as suicide. On the basis of these allegations, the police registered a case and the matter was taken up before the trial court.

The petitioners' counsel submitted before the High Court that the allegations of dowry demand were false and vague, and that the dispute between the spouses arose out of matrimonial incompatibility, which had been given a criminal colour to harass the petitioners. It was further submitted that the parties had subsequently decided to end their differences and obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent from the Family Court, Puri. In support, the petitioners filed a memo enclosing a joint divorce petition signed by both parties and the divorce decree dated 27 June 2016 passed by the Family Court, Puri dissolving the marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The opposite party's counsel did not dispute the mutual consent divorce but submitted that the opposite party may not be interested in pursuing the criminal case given the settlement.

The Court also noted that the opposite party had been served through substituted service by publication in the daily newspaper 'The Samaj' pursuant to an earlier order of the Court, and her service had been held sufficient.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, which had stated that "the courts must not encourage matrimonial litigation, and prolongation of such litigation is detrimental to both the parties who lose their young age in chasing multiple litigations." The Supreme Court had further stated that "adopting a hyper technical view can be counterproductive as pendency itself causes pain, suffering and harassment and, consequently, it is the duty of the court to ensure that matrimonial matters are amicably resolved, thereby bringing the agony, affliction, and torment to an end."

The Supreme Court in the said decision had also stated that "the courts only have to enquire and ensure that the settlement between the parties is achieved without pressure, force, coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence, and that the consent is indeed sought by free will and choice, and the autonomy of the parties is not compromised." It was further noted from that decision that "the inherent power on the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is wide and can be used/wielded to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court, albeit it has to be exercised sparingly carefully, and with caution."

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sri Rangappa Javoor vs State of Karnataka, wherein the Supreme Court, while quashing the chargesheet, had stated that "it is apparent that the parties have resolved and settled their disputes" and that "in the facts of the case, we do not feel that any useful purpose would be served by continuation of the prosecution." The Supreme Court in that case had further stated that "in cases of offences relating to matrimonial disputes, if the Court is satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled the disputes amicably, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, criminal proceedings inter-se parties can be quashed by exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or even under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."

Examining the facts of the present case, the Court recorded that "it is apparent that the Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 had settled their differences and agreed for dissolving their marriage by mutual consent" and noted that "almost ten years have elapsed in the meanwhile."

Also Read: Written Grounds Of Arrest Mandatory Under Article 22(1) And BNSS Section 47; Orissa High Court Directs DGP, Home Department To Train Police Officers

The Court stated that "on a careful examination of the background facts, keeping in mind the decisions of the Supreme Court and as the marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served to keep G.R. Case No. 626 of 2012 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri pending any further."

The Court further recorded that "in my considered view, this is a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 626 of 2012 in the file of the learned SDJM, Puri which arises out of Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.88 of 2012 and 1CC Case No. 56 of 2012."

"The proceedings are accordingly quashed and the CRLMC is allowed. Copy of this order be sent to the learned SDJM, Puri. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. D. K. Swain, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, Additional State Counsel

Case Title: DKM and Ors. v. State of Odisha and Anr.

Case Number: CRLMC No. 4110 of 2015

Bench: Justice Savitri Ratho