DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY,J. - (1.) Accused-petitioner Sheetal Kumar and complainant-respondent No. 2 Jyoti Bala, previously were husband and wife in relation. On account of strained relations, they have now dissolved their marriage vide decree of divorce with mutual consent, which is Annexure P-2 to this petition. It is during the course of proceedings complainant-respondent No. 2 initiated against the accused-petitioner under the provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, he uttered obscene language against her and allegedly criminally intimidated her in open Court. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Indora, on taking note of such language allegedly used by the accused-petitioner against the complainant-respondent No. 2, recorded her statement and it was forwarded to Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, for registration of a case against the accused under Section 294, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, FIR No. 24 of 2013, dated 01.02.2013, came to be registered against the accused-petitioner.
(2.) On completion of the investigation, Challan against the accused-petitioner has been filed and even the prosecution evidence also stands recorded. The case is presently at the stage of recording the statement of the accused-petitioner under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is at this stage, this petition came to be filed for quashing the pending criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner on the ground that complainant-respondent No. 2 and the accused-petitioner have now settled the controversy amicably and being so, complainant-respondent No. 2 is no more interested to prosecute the criminal case any further. Their statements to this effect have also been recorded separately.
(3.) This petition came to be filed at an advance stage of the proceedings, i.e. recording of the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The question, as such, arise that when the statement of complainant-respondent No. 2 has already been recorded in the trial Court, whether proceedings at this stage can be quashed or not. The answer to this poser would be in affirmative for the reason that an application for compounding of an offence in a case of conviction, can even be filed during the pendency of the appeal in the appellate Court also. Support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of Allahabad High Court in case titled Chhotey Singh and others v. State of Utter Pradesh, 1980 Cr. Law Journal 583 . It has been held in this judgment that an application for compounding of offence can only be made in a pending proceeding and not after the decision of the appeal. In a case of conviction under Section 325 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code the application for compounding of offence even was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh v. The State of (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1980 SC 1200 . That application to the extent of compounding of offence punishable under Section 325 IPC was allowed and the appellant acquitted of the charge so framed against him. Since the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, therefore, the conviction of the appellant was maintained, however, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. Similar is the view of the matter taken again by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chhidda Lal v. Bal Swarup, 1981 Cr. Law Journal 1705 . The case law cited supra, therefore, speaks in plenty that what to speak of compounding of an offence in the trial Court under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the trial Court, an application under the Section ibid can even be filed before the appellate Court also.;