Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Rushik Rajendra Shah and others, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR No. 40 of 2017 registered at Malabar Hill police station and the consequent charge-sheet in C.C. No. 437/PW/2017 pending before the J.M.F.C., 40th Court, Girgaon. The FIR was lodged by respondent No.1, Ruchika Rushik Shah, against her husband (applicant No.1) and his relatives (applicant Nos.2 to 5) for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 325, 323, 307, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The marriage between the informant and applicant No.1 was solemnized on 25.02.2011. The FIR alleged physical and mental harassment, including a specific incident on 16.04.2017 where the informant was assaulted on her nose causing fracture, and retention of her stridhan. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the informant also initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and divorce proceedings. The matter was settled between the parties, and consent terms were filed before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, in M.J. Petition No. A655 of 2022. By judgment and decree dated 23.10.2024, divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was granted. Pursuant to the consent terms, the DV Act proceedings were withdrawn, and the informant filed an affidavit in the High Court giving her no objection for quashing the charge-sheet. The consent terms included provisions for custody of the child with the informant, liberty to the informant to marry in future, and non-interference in each other's personal life. The Court heard the parties and noted that the informant was present in court and confirmed her no objection. The learned APP pointed out that charges had already been framed, but the applicants' counsel submitted that the charges were altered and challenged before the Sessions Court, which was pending. The Court considered the scope of its power under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012) and Krishnappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1488 of 2012). The Supreme Court had held that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or offences predominantly of a private nature can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. The touchstone for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC is to secure the ends of justice, and there can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. Applying this principle, the Court found that the offences in the present case were predominantly of a private nature and the settlement was genuine. The consent terms were elaborate and took care of the child's future. Therefore, the Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Non-Compoundable Offences - Settlement - The High Court considered whether criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences of a private nature can be quashed on settlement even after framing of charges. Relying on Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that the power under Section 482 CrPC is not constrained by the compoundability of offences and can be exercised to secure the ends of justice, especially where the parties have settled their disputes and the informant has no objection. (Paras 11-13) B) Matrimonial Law - Divorce by Mutual Consent - Section 13B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Settlement - The parties obtained a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and filed consent terms providing for custody of the child, future marriage, and non-interference. The Court noted that the consent terms were elaborate and took care of the child's future, making it in the best interest of both parties to quash the criminal proceedings. (Paras 6-8) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Framing of Charges - Effect on Quashing - Section 482 CrPC - The fact that charges were framed does not bar the High Court from quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC if the settlement is genuine and the offences are not heinous. The Court held that the touchstone for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC is to secure the ends of justice, and there can be no hard and fast line constricting that power. (Paras 9-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences predominantly of a private nature can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of settlement between the parties, even though charges have been framed and some offences are non-compoundable.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. The FIR registered vide C.R.No.40 of 2017 with Malabar Hill police station and the consequent charge-sheet filed before the J.M.F.C., 40th Court, Girgaon vide C.C.No.437/PW/2017, and all proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC
- Article 226 Constitution of India
- non-compoundable offences
- quashing on settlement
- matrimonial disputes
- Section 13B Hindu Marriage Act
- Section 498A IPC
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 325 IPC
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 504 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act
