K.D.SHAHI, J. - (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 498-A 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 498-A, I.P.C. and S. 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-lawDr. P. D. Bhargava and on 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 1996. During the proceedings, both the parties arrived at a compromise. There had been a mutual divorce and in 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 498-A I.P.C. is not compoundable 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 of the Patna High Court in the case of Jai Prakash Chaurasia v. State reported in 1994 J.I.C. 939 was also referred. This was case under Section 498-A I.P.C., the wife, complainant was not willing to prosecute the case, the court accorded the permission to compound and directed the Magistrate to record the compromise.
(3.) The third case which was referred before the learned single Judge was the Supreme Court decision in a case under Section 307 I.P.C. where the Supreme Court permitted the compounding of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. although it was not compoundable. Supreme Court directed the trial Judge to accord permission to compound the charges after being satisfied on the compromise. The learned single Judge differed from the finding of the Rahul Bhargava's case and formulated a question above and referred the question to the Division Bench for reply.;