Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2022
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3726 of 2019
Between:-
RAJU VISHWAKARMA S/O ISHWAR PRASAD
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O VILLAGE SILADEHI,
P.S. UMRETH, THESIL AND DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NARESH KUMAR SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE CHHINDWARA TAHSIL AND
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.KAMLESH TAMRAKAR, PANEL LAWYER)
(COMPLAINANT BY SHRI R.P.PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for hearing on interlocutory applications this
day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.7.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.76/2018 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara has convicted the appilcant under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulations.
2. As per prosecution story, the marriage between the complainant and applicant/accused was solemnized on 18.4.2012. On 21.10.2013, the Police Chowki, Dharam Tekri received a message that complainant had consumed some poisonous substance and had been admitted to Hospital. The Naib Tahsildar recorded the statement of complainant wherein she stated that applicant was making demand of dowry of Rs.22 lacs and harassing her on acocunt of not satisfying the same. Thereupon, the Police registered Crime No.1189/2012 for 2 offences under sections 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After completetion of investigation, charge-sheet under section 498-A of IPC has been filed in the competent court. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded trial.
3. The trial Court vide judgment of conviction dated 29.6.2018 passed in RCT No.3569/2013 held the applicant guilty for offence under section 498-A of IPC and sentened to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine amount to suffer additional R.I. of 2 months.
4. The applicant being aggrieved with the judgment and sentence of trial Court preferred Criminal Appeal No.76/2018. The lower appellate Court vide its impugned judgment dated 17.7.2019 affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court under section 498-A of IPC. However, it modified the punishment and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.10,000/-, as already stated hereinabove.
5. The applicant being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the lower appellate preferred the instant criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on several grounds. However, during pendency of instant revision the parties have entered into compromise and accordingly, filed interlocutory applications being I.A.No.14105/2021 under section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.; I.A.No.14107/2021 under section 320(6) Cr.P.C. and I.A.No.14108/2021 u/s 320(8) of Cr.P.C. stating that the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of Court and now they have no dispute amongst themselves and they are living happily together, therefore, aforesaid interlocutory applications be allowed. All the aforesaid applications are supported by affidavits of complainant and applicant.
6. Considering the aforesaid interlocutory applications by the parties, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.12.2021 directed the parties to appear before the Registrar (J-II) for verification of their compromise. The Registrar (J-II) has verified the compromise and submitted his report on 3 15.12.2021 stating he has recorded statements of parties who stated before him that they have amicably settled their dispute voluntarily out of their own free will and without any threat, pressure, coercion or inducement.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this Court has ample power to permit compounding of the offence even at this stage while exercising its jurisdiction, even though the petitioner has been convicted and is under the rigors of the sentence imposed on him. In this connection, he has referred to the provisions of section 320 of Cr.P.C. to show that certain offences can be compounded with the permission of the Court.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant has supported the contention of learned counsel for the applicant and prayed that aforesaid interlocutory applications be allowed.
9. Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer and submitted that offence under section 498-A of IPC is non-compoundable offence, therefore, interlocutory applications under section 320 of Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The object of introducing section 498-A in I.P.C. was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A of IPC was added with a view to punish 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 counter productive and would act against the interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. The offence under section 498-A is not compoundable, but in view of the settlement/compromise between the parties and parties are now living together peacefully, offence can be compounded. Taking into account the provision of section 320(6) Cr.P.C. wherefrom it is clear that High Court in exercise of powers under section 401 Cr.P.C. may allow the parties to a criminal case to compromise their disputes, even when such compromise is effected after the date of the final disposal of the case by the inferior Courts 4 competent to try it. Further, it is not competent for the High Court to allow a compromise to be recorded unless the aggrived person is actually before the High Court and has expressly recorded his consent to a compromise being recorded. Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. stipulates that effect of compounding is the acquittal of the accused.
11. It is pertinent to mentioned section 498-A of IPC is non-compoundable offence. The offene under section 498-A of IPC is not mentioned in the list of offence, which are compoundable with the permission of the Court. It appears that due to obvious reason this provision was introduced subsequently as an offence under the I.P.C. in the year 1983 (Act No.46 of 1983). The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. True it is that offences which are 'non-compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable.
12. Taking into account the law laid down in the case of Ramchandra Singh and others vs. State of Bihar and another, (2003) 10 SCC 234 and considering that section 498-A of IPC is non-compoundable offence the conviction of the applicant is hereby maintained. In the light of settled law that compromise after conviction can be taken into consideration by the Courts at the time of determination of punishment as also the fact that applicant on bail during trial as well as in appeal. Even in the instant criminal revision, vide order passed in I.A.No.14246/2019 his 5 jail sentence has been suspended on 26.8.2019, the sentence of the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone.
13. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of. The sentence of the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE RM Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI Date: 2022.04.01 19:00:51 IST