Vijay Kumar Verma - (1.) BY means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr. P.C.'), the applicants (1) Prem Shankar Pandey, (2) Sanjay Pandey, (3) Guddan, (4) Rajal, (5) Sonu and (6) Smt. Siyarani have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7144 of 2005, State v. Prem Shankar Pandey and others arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2001, under Sections 498A and 323, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act P.S. Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-1, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. in brief, are that marriage of applicant No. 1 Prem Shankar Pandey and opposite party No. 2 Smt. Rubey Pandey took place on 28th June, 1999, but subsequently some misunderstanding and disputes were developed between the couple, as a result of which Smt. Rubey Pandey lodged an F.I.R. on 18.6.2001 at P. S. Mahrajpur (Kanpur Nagar), where a case under Sections 498A and 323, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act was registered at Crime No. 136 of 2001 against the applicants. After investigation, final report was submitted by the police. Against that final report, Smt. Rubey Pandey filed protest petition. A.C.M.M. Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 11.1.2005 summoned the accused persons to face the trial under Sections 498A and 323, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act after rejecting the final report. On the basis of that summoning order, Crl. Case No. 7144 of 2005 was registered against the applicants. During pendency of that case, the parties settled their dispute amicably in the year 2006 and in pursuance of that settlement, the applicant Prem Shankar Pandey and Smt. Rubey Pandey began to live together. As a result of the settlement entered into between the parties, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceeding of aforesaid criminal case. I have heard arguments of Sri Raghavendra Dwivedi, advocate, appearing for the applicants, Sri Yadvendra Dwivedi, advocate, representing the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. It was submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that no useful purpose would be served to continue the proceedings of criminal case pending in the court below, because the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and applicant No. 1 and O. P. No. 2 are living together peacefully. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards the counter-affidavit filed by O. P. No. 2 Smt. Rubey Pandey on 27.7.2009. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that although Section 498A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act are not compoundable, but this Court under its inherent power can quash the proceeding of aforesaid criminal case. For this submission reliance has been placed on B. S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (46) ACC 779 : 2003 (2) ACR 1305 (SC).
(3.) THE learned A.G.A. on the other hand, contended that the offences punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act are not compoundable and since there is specific bar under Section 320 (9), Cr. P.C. to compound the offences, which are not compoundable under Section 320 (1) and (2), Cr. P.C., hence, this Court cannot quash the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the facts involved in this case. I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention of learned A.G.A. In my opinion, in appropriate cases where the dispute is of a personal nature and the parties have settled the dispute amicably, the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. can quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases where the offences are non-compoundable. Reference in this context may be made to the case of Manoj Sharma v. State and others, 2009 (64) ACC 320, in which the criminal proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. under Section 420/468/471/ 34/120B, I.P.C. was quashed by Hon'ble Apex Court on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Section 320, Cr. P.C. cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with other provisions of the Code. One such other provision is Section 482, Cr. P.C. which reads thus : "Section 482. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of the justice." ;