Hariram and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.—This order shall dispose of M. Cr. P. No. 771/2005 being on application filed by the applicants u/s 320 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. for composition of a non-compoundable offence u/s 498A of the I P.C.

1A. Briefly stated the facts are as under: Applicant No. 4- Naresh Kumar Agrawal was married to Smt. Manju Devi Agrawal on 11-6-1985. Applicants No. 1 and 2 are the parents and applicants No. 3, 4 and 5 are the brothers of Naresh Kumar Agrawal, applicant No. 6 is wife of one Premchand, younger brother of Naresh Kumar Agrawal and applicants No. 7 and 8 are the brother-in-laws of Naresh Kumar Agrawal.

Upon a complaint being lodged by Jaiprakash Agrawal on 5-11-1985 for harassment of his sister Smt. Manju Devi Agrawal by the applicants herein on account of demand for dowry, offences u/s 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were registered. After investigation, the applicants were prosecuted and convicted by Judicial Magistrate First Class on 15-9-1989 in Criminal Case No. 700/1989 u/s 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and were sentenced for R.I. for two years each with fine of Rs. 200/- u/s 498A of the I.P.C. and R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The applicants herein preferred on appeal against the conviction and sentence as aforesaid in Cr. Appeal No. 126/1989. The Sessions Judge, Raigarh while partly allowing appeal and acquitting the applicants herein u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Judge u/s 498A of the I.P.C.

During the pendency of the criminal trial, the husband-applicant No. 4 had filed Civil Suit No. 6-A/ 1989 for dissolution of marriage u/s 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is stated that during the pendency of this Civil Suit, parties entered into a compromise. Thereafter, the applicant No. 4 herein made an application u/s 13(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce which was registered as Civil Suit No. 13-A/1998. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties both the Civil Suit No. 6, A/1989 as well as Civil Suit No. 13-A/1998 were referred to Lok Adalat on 2-8-1998. Civil Suit No. 6-A/1989 was dismissed and in Civil Suit No. 13-A/1998 a decree for divorce was passed between the applicant No. 4 herein and Smt. Manju Devi Agrawal.

After the decision rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 126/1989 as aforesaid, the complainant Jaiprakash Agrawal i.e. the brother of Smt. Mandu Devi Agrawal made an application u/s 378(4) of the Cr. P.C. for leave to file appeal which was registered as M.Cr. C. No. 1956/90. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the complainant sought permission to withdraw the M. Cr. C. No. 1956/90. On 3-3-2005 the M. Cr. C. No. 1956/90 was dismissed as withdrawn.

The applicants herein filed Criminal Revision No. 275/1990 against their conviction u/s 498A of the I.P.C. On 12-9-2005 a joint application was filed by Jaiprakash Agrawal, the complainant and Smt. Manju Devi Agrawal and the applicants No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 u/s 320 read with Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for composition of offence on the ground that the parties have compromised and resolved all their existing disputes i.e. civil and criminal, amicably outside the Court and as such they have also decided to compound the offence u/s 498A of the I.P.C. It was stated therein that as a result thereof Jaiprakash Agrawal and Smt. Manju Devi did not want to prosecute the complaint or police report any further without any pressure from any of the applicants and since the parties have developed good relations during the pendency of these proceedings and any adverse order against the applicants in this revision may come in their way on improving their relations, therefore, it is just and proper for this Hon''ble Court to allow the parties to compound the offence. It was prayed that parties may be allowed to compound the offence and to acquit the applicants. Thus in sum and substance, since Section 498A of the I.P.C. is an offence which is not compoundable u/s 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure either with or without the permission of the Court, it was prayed that under the inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 Cr. P.C. the parties may be allowed to compound the offence and as a result thereof to acquit the accused.

On 21-11 -2005 a question of law was raised by the Court as to whether at the revlsional stage the parties could be allowed to enter into a compromise for an offence which was non-compoundable in law and in a revision petition filed against the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, in exercise of the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. the parties can be permitted to compound the offence and whether in view of the compromise the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court could be quashed in exercise of inherent powers of High Court u/s 482 Cr. P.C. Counsel addressed the Court on the above question while arguing on application M. Cr. P. No. 771/2005.

Shri Manindra Shrivastava, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants herein placed reliance on B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (1) Mohd. Shamim and Others Vs. Smt. Nahid Begum and Another, , Kamlakar Mahadevrao Patil and Another Vs. State of M.P., and Hemraj Vs. State of M.P., . Learned senior counsel for the applicants referred to para 15 of the judgment of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, wherein it was held that Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. It was argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the matrimonial dispute having been amicably resolved between the parties, it was a fit case in which the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. may be exercised to quash the conviction and sentence awarded u/s 498A I.P.C. and to allow the application u/s 320 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. for composition of offence.

Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Government Advocate opposed the application on two grounds. Firstly, that no separate application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. had been filed by the applicants herein and even in the application M.Cr.P. No. 771/2005 no prayer was made to quash the conviction and sentence u/s 498A I.P.C. in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court u/s 482 Cr. P.C. It was further contended that it was not a fit case for exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. because the conviction of the applicants herein, u/s 498A of the I.P.C. by the trial Judge and the sentence awarded thereunder had been affirmed in criminal appeal No. 126/1989. Secondly, the offence u/s 498A of the I.P.C. was non-compoundable u/s 320 Cr. P.C. and therefore, the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. could not be invoked to scuttle the provision contained in Section 320 Cr. P.C. to acquit the applicants herein in view of the composition of the offence.

Having heard the rival contentions, I have gone through the record. There are two separate issues involved in this matter. Firstly, whether in an offence which is non-compoundable u/s 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. could be invoked to permit the parties to compound the offence and as a result thereof to acquit the accused. Secondly, whether in view of the compromise effected between the parties if would be a fit case in which the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. should be exercised to quash the conviction and sentence imposed on the applicants u/s 498A I.P.C. by the trial Judge and affirmed in appeal and to acquit the applicants herein.

So far as the first question is concerned, the answer must be in the negative. I am of the considered opinion that the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked to supplement Section 320 Cr. P.C. by permitting the complainant and Smt. Manju Devi Agrawal to compound the offence u/s 498A I.P.C. with the applicants herein which was non-compoundable in law and to acquit the applicants herein as a result thereof. Since the offence u/s 498A of the I.P.C. is a non-compoundable offence, u/s 320 Cr. P.C. no such permission can be granted. The prayer in M.Cr. P. No. 771/ 2005 to allow the parties to compound the offence and to acquit the applicants herein as a result thereof cannot therefore be granted in law.

Coming to the next question, the applicants herein did not file any application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing their conviction and sentence awarded u/s 498A I.P.C. in Criminal Appeal No. 126/1999. There is no prayer in the application M.Cr.P. No. 771/2005 to that effect. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants contended that even if the application M.Cr. P. No. 771/2005 did not specifically contain such a prayer the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. should be invoked in this case for quashing the conviction and sentence imposed on the applicants herein. This contention has to be considered only to be rejected.

In B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , the Apex Court took the view that in view of the compromise effected between the two spouses there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted for the offence and the continuance of the appeal would be a mockery since the wife would not support the imputations made in the FIR and in such eventuality there would also be no chances of conviction. Under these circumstances, it was held that it would not be proper to decline to exercise the inherent power of quashing the FIR on the ground that it would tantamount to permit the parties to compound a non-compoundable offence. In this light, it was held that the provision contained in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of the Code.

In Mohd. Shamim and Others Vs. Smt. Nahid Begum and Another, it was held that in view of the compromise effected between the two spouses continuance of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court and the FIR was therefore liable to be quashed. Thus, in both the above cases relied on by the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants, the Apex Court had quashed the FIR since continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and there would be no chances of conviction in view of the compromise effected between the parties. In both the cases cited above, the trial for an offence u/s 498A I.P.C. had not concluded and the evidence of the wife was yet to be recorded.

In Kamlakar Mahadevrao Patil and Another Vs. State of M.P., , the marriage between the two spouses had faced rough weather due to their posting in employment at Raisen (M.P.) and Rajnandgaon (C.G.) thereby resulting in incompatibility during marriage. The relations got strained. The husband was convicted for an offence u/s 498A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. Being aggrieved, the husband preferred a criminal appeal. In the meanwhile, a Civil suit for dissolution of marriage had been instituted. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit for divorce the two spouses substantially patched up the differences and improved their relations and harmonizing to a great extent. In order to settle their lives respectively, they decided to obtain a decree for divorce by mutual consent which was granted. Due to complete normalization of the lives of the two spouses they compromised their disputes and differences. In view of these circumstances, the High Court quashed the conviction and sentence imposed on the husband u/s 498A I.P.C. and also further proceedings in appeal. In the present case, the scenario is absolutely different and depicts a grave social evil i.e. serious harassment and cruelty towards a newly married wife on account of demand for dowry.

In the case of Hemraj Vs. State of M.P., the facts were that after the conviction of the husband u/s 498A I.P.C. the parties were residing together for two years and were enjoying marital bliss and a compromise had been effected between them voluntarily.. Under these circumstances, the powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. were invoked and placing reliance upon Kamlakar''s case (supra) and the decision rendered by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , the entire proceedings of the revision before the High Court as well as the proceedings be-, fore the trial Court were quashed and the husband was acquitted. The case law cited by the learned senior advocate for the applicants is thus clearly distinguishable.

I have gone through the record of criminal case No. 700/1989. It bears a pathetic tale of cruelty and tremendous harassment of Smt. Manju Devi Agrawal a newly married bride soon after her marriage on 11-6-1985 with the applicant No. 4 herein on account of the demand for dowry by the applicants herein. The decree of divorce passed between the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case leading to the conviction of the applicants u/s 498A L.P.C. clearly go to show that so far as the matrimonial relationship is concerned it was broken down and shattered completely due to harassment of Smt. Manju Agrawal by the applicants herein soon after her marriage on account of demand for dowry and was at the point of no return. Harassment of the newly married wife on account of demand for dowry is a grave social evil and has to be severely dealt with. Merely .because the two spouses have amicably compromised to separate and break the matrimonial tie would not ipso facto mean that the parties have developed good relations during pendency of these proceedings. On the ''other hand, it shows that relationship between the two spouses had completely broken down due to harassment of the newly wedded wife by the applicants herein on account of demand for dowry and therefore the averments made in para 4 of the application M.Cr.P. No. 771/2005 that the parties have developed good relations during the pendency of these proceedings was nothing but a farce. I am of the considered opinion that in a case u/s 498A I.P.C. of the present nature depicting a grave social evil i.e. the cruel harassment of the newly married wife on account of not bringing sufficient dowry by the applicants herein, for which the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Judge u/s 498A I.P.C. has been affirmed in appeal, the exercise of the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the conviction and sentence u/s 498A I.P.C. would frustrate the ends of justice.

In view of the aforesaid observation, application M.Cr. P. No. 771/2005 is dismissed.