- (1.) THE present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-accused challenging the order dated 26.7.2012, passed by the Additional Civil Judge(J.D.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bharatpur, (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court ") in Cr. Case No. 215/2011, whereby the trial curt has declined to compound the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, in view of the compromise made by the petitioner and the respondent no. 2.
(2.) IN the instant case, the petitioner is the husband of respondent no. 2. The respondent no.2 complainant, had filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner before the Court, which was sent for investigation u/Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station Mahila Thana, Bharatpur. The F.I.R. being No.178/2007, was registered against the petitioner pursuant to the said order. After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC. When the trial court framed the charges against the petitioner and proceeded with the trial, the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 submitted a compromise stating interalia that they have settled their disputes and are staying together as husband and wife and requested the court to permit them to compound the offences. Vide the order dated 26.7.2012, the trial court permitted the parties to compound the offence under Section 406, however, declined to discharge the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, the offence being non-compoundable. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. The learned counsel Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma, for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini, for the respondent no. 2 have jointly submitted that the parties have settled their disputes out-side the Court and are staying together as husband and wife. He submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause disturbance in their matrimonial life and, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 498-A are also required to be quashed. So far as the powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are concerned, it can not be gainsaid that they are wider than the powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. for permitting the parties to compound the non-compoundable offence. At this juncture a pertinent observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. V. Radhika and Anr.(2011)10 SCC 705 reads as under:-. "17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr. P.C. " "18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situation in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked. " In view of the above stated legal position and in view of the fact that the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 are staying happily as the husband and wife, this is a fit case to quash the Criminal Proceedings pending before the trial court. In that view of the matter, the proceedings of Cr. Case No. 215/2011, pending before the trial court are quashed. The petition stands allowed accordingly. ;