Mamta Mishra & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

Present C482 application has been filed by the applicants along with the joint compounding application (IA/6/2025) for quashing the summoning order dated 16.10.2019 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7242 of 2019, State vs. Mamta Mishra & others u/s 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

The ground for seeking compounding of offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present proceedings between the parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable.

Applicant no.1-Mamta Mishra, applicant no.2-Chandra Bhan Dixit, applicant no.3-Santosh Dixit (all are appeared through V.C.), and respondent no.2-Anjali Mishra @ Santosh @ Rani are present in the Court being duly identified by their respective counsel.

In the compounding application, it has been stated that respondent no.2 has amicably resolved her dispute with the applicants and does not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings. It is further stated in the compounding application that applicant no.3 and respondent no.2 have agreed to file divorce petition mutually under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act with an application for waiving of the mandatory period under sub-Section 2 of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Furthermore, applicant no.3 shall return the bike, five silver utensils, Almirah, Ring, Nose Ringh, Earrings, Silver Pajeb (given to mother-in-law) and Brass utensils to the respondent no.2.

It is further stated in the compounding application that applicant no.3 shall pay Rs.1 lakh on first day of motion and shall pay remaining Rs.1 lakh on the second day of motion, by way of bank draft, to the respondent no.2 and the amount shall be considered as one time alimony and the respondent no.2 shall not claim any other dues including Stri Dhan.

Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case, therefore, there is no useful purpose for keeping this criminal case pending and it will be a futile exercise to ask the applicants to appear before the trial court as accused to face the trial.

So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in this regard in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 and has held as below: -

“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”

Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would be a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings after settlement. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

Accordingly, compounding application (IA/6/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the summoning order dated 16.10.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7242 of 2019, State vs. Mamta Mishra & others, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital are hereby quashed qua the applicants. FIR No.72 of 2019 and the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto also stand quashed.

Present criminal misc. application thus stands allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly.