Orissa High Court
Sridhar Pani vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 16 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003CRILJ3952, 2003(II)OLR238
Author: L. Mohapatra
Bench: L. Mohapatra
ORDER L. Mohapatra, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 5-4-2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. No. 120 of 1992 rejecting the petition for compounding the offence.
2. It appears from the record that opposite party No. 2 has filed the complaint alleging commission of offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 379 of the Penal Code by the present petitioner. During the course of hearing of the complaint, a joint petition was filed for compounding the offences. The learned Magistrate in the impugned order observed that Sections 294 and 506 of the Penal Code are not compoundable and so far as Section 379 of the Penal Code is concerned, since the subject-matter of theft exceeds Rs. 250/-, the same is also not compound-able and accordingly in the impugned order the learned Magistrate compounded the offence under Section 323 of the Penal Code, but refused to compound in respect of rest of the offences i.e. Sections 294, 379 and 506 of the Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel Shri Ray appearing for the petitioner challenged the order on two grounds. According to Shri Ray, at the time of framing of charge the learned Magistrate by order dated 7-7-1994 had framed charge for commission of offences under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 379 of the Penal Code. There cannot be any alteration of charge while considering an application for compounding the offences. According to Shri Ray. the learned Magistrate committed illegality in framing charge under Section 506(ii) of the Penal Code while considering the application for compounding the offences. The other ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in 2003 (3) Supreme 227 : (2003 Cri LJ 2028) compounding is permissible in non-compound-able offences by the High Court in appropriate cases in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. The Apex Court has observed that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the High Court can quash the proceeding in appropriate case where the parties approach for compounding the offence even in a non-compoundable offence.
4. So far as the first point is concerned, on perusal of the order dated 7-7-1994 it appears that charge was framed for commission of offences under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 379 of the Penal Code. In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate though has taken note of the same, at the same time has also observed that the offence alleged and charge framed is one under Section 506(ii) of the Penal Code. If observation of the learned Magistrate to that extent is a mistake, the same can be rectified, but if the same has been done deliberately, an illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate by altering the charge. There is scope for the Court at that stage to alter the charge. I accordingly, agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence is under Section 506 of the Penal Code and not under Section 506(ii).
5. So far as the second point is concerned, the Apex Court in the decision referred to has observed as follows :--
"There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties, may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their young days in chasing their cases in different Courts. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the 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 counter-productive 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 XXA of Indian Penal Code. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. For the forgoing reasons, we set aside the judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned."
6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint as well as the copy of the application for compounding the offence placed before the Court. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that the complaint is of the year 1992 and the parties intend to compound the offences, I, following the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P.C. and quash the proceeding in I.C.C. No. 120 of 1992 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.
Accordingly, the criminal revision is disposed of.