Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Section 498A compounded in Km. Madhurima Bhargava And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 11 August, 1998Matching Fragments
1. The question referred by the single Judge, Hon'ble S. K. Phaujdar, J. is :-
Whether in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court could direct compounding the offences which are not made compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. specially in case under Section 498A of the I.P.C.
2. It shall be proper to give some facts of the case before adverting to reply the question. Smt. Meena Bhargava was wedded to Aditya Bhargava on 6th of October, 1990, according to Hindu rite and rituals. On 26-6-1992, she lodged a report at police station Haldwani, district Nainital under Section 498A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband Aditya Bhargava, Nanads (husband's sister) Ku. Madhurima Bhargava and Kum. Kavita Bhargava, Jeth (elder brother of husband) Pradeep Bhargava, Jethani (elder brother's wife of husband) Smt. Krishna Bhargava, mother-in-law Smt. Subhashini and father-in-law Dr. P. D. Bhargava and 0(1 that basis police filed criminal case No. 799 of 1994 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. These accused persons filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. which was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 2704 of 1.996. During the proceedings, both the parties arrived at a com -promise. There had been a mutual divorce and i)t view of the compromise the wife was not. willing to proceed with the case and as such they should be allowed to compound the case and the proceedings be dropped. Before the learned single Judge it was argued that the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is not compoundabie in view of the provisions under Section 320 Cr. P.C. The ruling reported in 1997 J.I.C. 190 (All) Rahul Agrawal v. State of U.P. was referred before him in which the Court: had allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C". and. quashed the criminal proceedings between the parties because, the disputes between them were amicably settled. The Court was of the view that no useful purpose would be served in a long trial. Before the learned single judge the decision at the Patna High Court in the case of Jai Prakash Chauiasia v. State reported in 1994 J.I.C. 939 was also referred. This was case under Section 498A I.P.C., tin; wife, complainant was not willing to prosecute the case, the court accorded the permission to compound and directed the Magistrate to record the compromise.
12. In the ruling reported in (1991) 1 D. & M. C. 389, Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, a single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held where the parties under Sections 406/198-A I.P.C. have compromised the case, it will be sheer wastage of public time if the formalities of the trial has to go through. The High Court of Haryana, therefore, quashed the First Information Report in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and allowed the parties to compound the case.
13. On principles we cannot agree that an offence not compoundable should be made com-poundable and the Court should record recognition to such a compromise but still if the parties have compromised and do not produce evidence in view of the compromise one has to agree that the trial of the case shall be sheer wastage of public time and an exercise in futility. In another ruling reported in (1993) 2 D. & M. C. 581 : 1993 Cri LJ 3162, Daggupati Jayalakshmi v. State, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that under inherent power in matrimonial cases, divorce or reunion by mutual consent, if there is a compromise, the Court is competent, to permit the parties to compound a non-compoundable offence. In this ruling also the case was under Sections 498A, 323 and 494 I.P.C. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of this ruling, it has specifically been held :-
8. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced in the year 1983, after a long lapse of time. Indian Penal Code was introduced in the year 1860. In view of the agitation from different, quarters regarding the husband or relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty, the parliament thought it fit to introduce this Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and in view of the seriousness of the offence it was made non-compoundable. When once the Legislature thought it fit to make the offence under Section 498A introduced under Chapter XX-A as non-compoundable, we have to consider whether under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court has got inherent power to permit the parties to compound the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. It may be remembered that even under the Hindu Marriage Act where the parties made serious allegations of adultery, and cruelty etc., still the legislature thought it fit to introduce a clause to the effect that the Court before the commencement of the trial, has to make an attempt for reconciliation. Even when serious allegations are. made against each other, the Court has to make a genuine effort for reconciliation. If that reconciliation ended in fruitful success of making the parties re-united, the concerned Judge would not proceed with the matter further. Similarly when serious allegations are made in a complaint which made the Court to take cognizance of the same, can we say whether the Court can continue the proceedings involving non-compoundable offence even after the parties (husband and wife) compromised the matter voluntarily and filed an application for permission to compound the offence? Certainly the Magistrate is not competent to permit the parties to compound a non-compoundable offence. Then what is the remedy that is available for the parties (husband and wife) to compound the offence of a non-compoundable nature ? The only remedy available for the parties, as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is the inherent power vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a given set of circumstances, to meet (he ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the law, the Court has got inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. When there is a clear section in the Criminal Procedure Code, viz. Section 320, making particular offence as non-compoundable whether the Court can exercise the inherent power under Section. 482 and permit She parties to compound a non-compoundable offence. Let, us examine the case law on the subject to arrive at a just decision on the controversy in issue.
From the discussion above, it is clear that although a case under Section 498A I.P.C. is not compoundable but in the special circumstances the Court has got ample jurisdiction to quash the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
18. Hence it is found that in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court cannot direct compounding of an offence which are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. including a case under Section 498A I.P.C. However, the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash the proceedings to maintain the matrimonial home, to allow the parties to live in peace, to save the time of the Court, to avoid exercise in futility, to save the couple from public humiliation and to save them from washing their dirty linen in public and particularly when the parties will not co-operate with the Court in just and fair trial of the case and when the chances of conviction are absolutely i bleak rather nil in view of the compromise.