Prasoon Joshi vs Abhilasha Sharma

M.C. Sharma, J.—This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by the accused petitioners u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 449 of 2012 pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No. 12 Jaipur City under sections 498-A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in FIR No. 165 of 2011 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana South Jaipur City. Facts as alleged in Criminal Misc. Petition are that the petitioner No. 1 Prasoon was married to respondent No.1 Abhilasha Sharma on 14.2.2009 at Pandit Paradise New Sanganer Road Jaipur according to Hindu customs. After some time matrimonial dispute aroused between husband and wife and due to the dispute between the parties respondent No.1 lodged an FIR No. 165/2011 in the Police Station Mahila Thana South Jaipur against the accused petitioners and the police after due investigation filed the charge-sheet against the accused petitioners.

It has been stated in the petition that the accused petitioners and the respondent No.1 have now settled their all marital disputes among them and they have filed a compromise deed before the trial court on 16.12.2013 and the same was attested by the trial court for the offence u/s 406 IPC as this section was only compoundable with the permission of the court dated 16.12.2013. The order dated 16.12.2013 of the trial court reads as under :

(Vernacular matter omitted..........Ed.)

After refusal by the trial court to attest the compromise deed of the accused petitioners and the respondent, the accused petitioners have filed this criminal petition for quashing of the proceedings of the trial court against them. On 5.5.2014 counsel for the accused petitioners and the counsel for the respondent No.1 jointly filed an application for taking compromise on record and disposal of the case as per the law. The crux of the matter is that an application u/s 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the parties in the court of Family Court No. 2 Jaipur and that the respondent No.1 Abhilasha Sharma has received a fixed deposit demand draft of PNB Malviya Nagar Branch Jaipur dated 12.12.2013 of the amount of Rs. 10 lacs and after that there is no dispute between the parties regarding dowry articles, permanent alimony etc. The learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Jagdish Chanana and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another, Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Others, and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, It was prayed by both the parties that the criminal misc. petition may be allowed and the proceedings pending u/s 498-A IPC and section 4 DP Act may be dropped against the accused petitioners on the basis of the compromise in view of the inherent powers of this court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice.

Mr. Alladin Khan, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has argued that the trial court vide order dated 16.12.2013 allowed the application of the parties in view of section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding section 406 IPC but the offence u/s 498-A is not mentioned in the table of section 320(2) Cr.P.C. for compouding of offence with permission of the court. In these circumstances, the proceedings have been held to be rightly continued against the accused petitioners for section 498-A IPC and section 4 of the DP Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the joint application dated 5.5.2014 of the parties along with the compromise deed filed by the parties before the trial court on 16.12.2013.

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to have a look at the important rulings of the Apex Court on which reliance has been placed by the parties.

In Jagdish Chanana and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, the Apex Court held as under :

"3. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR No. 83 dated 12-3-2005, PS City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings."

In the above matter the appeal was directed against the order dated 24-7-2006 rejecting the prayer for quashing of FIR No. 83 dated 12-3-2005, PS City Sonepat registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 read with Section 34 IPC. During the pendency of these proceedings before the Apex Court Crl. Misc. Petition No. 42 of 2008 was filed putting on record a compromise deed dated 30-4-2007. The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in Court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. The Apex Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings.

In Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another, held as under after discussing the provisions of section 320 Cr.P.C. and section 482 Cr.P.C. and various rulings of the Apex Court :

This Court has, in several decisions, declared that the offences u/s 320 CrPC which are not compoundable with or without the permission of the court cannot be allowed to be compounded. In Ram Lal and Another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, this Court referred to Section 320(9) CrPC to declare that such offences as are made compoundable u/s 320 can alone be compounded and none else. This Court declared two earlier decisions rendered in Y. Suresh Babu Vs. State of A.P. and Another, and AIR 1988 2111 (SC) to be per incuriam inasmuch as the same permitted composition of offences not otherwise compoundable u/s 320 CrPC.

What is important, however, is that in Ram Lal and Another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the parties had settled the dispute among themselves after the appellants stood convicted u/s 326 IPC. The mutual settlement was then sought to be made a basis for compounding of the offence in appeal arising out of the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused. This Court observed that since the offence was non compoundable, the Court could not permit the same to be compounded, in the teeth of Section 320. Even so, the compromise was taken as an extenuating circumstance which the Court took into consideration to reduce the punishment awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone.

To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein this Court said: (SCC p. 670, para 14)

"14. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the court may keep in mind."

There is another line of decisions in which this Court has taken note of the compromise arrived at between the parties and quashed the prosecution in exercise of powers vested in the High Court u/s 482 CrPC. In State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, this Court held that the High Court was entitled to quash the proceedings if it came to the conclusion that the ends of justice so required. This Court observed: (SCC pp. 702-03, para 7)

"7.... Section 482 of the new Code, which corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of 1898, provides that:

''561-A. Saving of inherent power of High Court.--Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power 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 justice.''

In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court''s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, this Court held that the High Court should take into account any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue or quash the prosecution where in its opinion the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak. This Court observed: (SCC p. 695, para 7)

"7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

In B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, the question that fell for consideration before this Court was whether the inherent powers vested in the High Court u/s 482 Cr PC could be exercised to quash non-com-poundable offences. The High Court had, in that case relying upon the decision of this Court in Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra, held that since the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC were not compoundable, it was not permissible in law to quash the FIR on the ground that there has been a settlement between the parties. This Court declared that the decisions in Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra, had been misread and misapplied by the High Court and that the judgment of this Court in Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra, clearly supported the view that nothing contained in Section 320(2) can limit or affect the exercise of inherent power of the High Court if interference by the High Court was considered necessary for the parties to secure the ends of justice.

This Court observed: B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another,

"8. It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra, does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of the Code or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 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.

* * *

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of the Code."

That brings to the decision of this Court in Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, whereby the High Court had declined the prayer for quashing of the prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 406, 409, 418, 506/34 IPC despite a compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused. The High Court had taken the view that since the offence punishable u/s 406 was not compoundable, the settlement between the parties could not be recognised nor the pending proceedings quashed. This Court summed up the approach to be adopted in such cases in the following words: (SCC p. 584, paras 6-7)

"6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.

We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs. 250 which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the latter case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case direct that FIR No. 155 dated 17-11-2001 PS Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed."

To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, where relying upon the decision in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , this Court took note of the settlement arrived at between the parties and quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and held that since the criminal proceedings had the overtone of a civil dispute which had been amicably settled between the parties, it was a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of the criminal proceedings since the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.

We may also at this stage refer to the decision of this Court in Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, . This Court observed: (SCC p. 5, paras 8-9)

"8. In our view, the High Court''s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The first information report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the first information report was the basis of the investigation by the police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter....

As we have indicated hereinbefore, the exercise of power u/s 482 Cr PC of Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case. In the facts of this case we are of the view that continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility."

It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable u/s 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power u/s 482 CrPC. 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 u/s 482 CrPC 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 u/s 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 u/s 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC.

Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power u/s 482 CrPC 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 situations in which the exercise of power u/s 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 u/s 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.

Coming to the case at hand, we are of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the access to the two plots which are adjacent to each other. It was not a case of broad daylight robbery for gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some "misunderstanding and misconception" will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eye-witnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 CrPC could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below.

We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and quash the prosecution in CC No. 183 of 2010 pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Neyyattinkara."

In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Others, the Apex Court in paras 18 to 25, 32 to 35 after discussing the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and the various Apex Court rulings held as under:

Inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC can be exercised in the following category of cases:

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

This Court time and again has observed that the extraordinary power u/s 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The Court would be justified in exercising the power when it is imperative to exercise the power in order to prevent injustice. In order to understand the nature and scope of power u/s 482 CrPC it has become necessary to recapitulate the ratio of the decided cases.

Reference to the following cases would reveal that the Courts have consistently taken the view that they must use the court''s extraordinary power only to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. We have largely inherited the provisions of inherent powers from the English jurisprudence, therefore the principles decided by the English courts would be of relevance for us. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective.

In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1 Lord Devlin while dealing with similar provisions under the English law stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphrys 1977 AC 1 : (1976) WLR 857 stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that (AC p. 46 D): "it is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious that the Judge has the power to intervene". He further stated that the court''s power to prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved.

In R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (AIR p. 869, para 6)

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

The powers possessed by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to ensure that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down with regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.

This Court had an occasion to deal with the concept of inherent powers in State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, . The Court again reiterated that the wholesome power u/s 482 Cr PC entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this Court and other courts.

In B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, the Court reiterated the legal position that the Court''s inherent powers have no limit but should be exercised with utmost care and caution. Inherent powers must be utilised with the sole purpose to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. In exercise of inherent powers, proper scrutiny of facts and circumstances of the case concerned are absolutely imperative.

In Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, this Court while relying on the aforesaid judgment in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, observed that on an overall view of the facts the Court was satisfied that technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of the criminal proceedings.

In Jagdish Chanana and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, this Court observed as under:

"The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transaction that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise."

In Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, in which one of us (Bedi, J.) was the author of the judgment observed as under:

(SCC p. 584, para 6)

"6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly over burdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."

In Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, the Apex Court held as under :

The only question for consideration before this Court at this stage is that inasmuch as all those offences are not compound-able offences u/s 320 of the Code (except Section 420 IPC that too with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending), whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code or by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India?

The above question was recently considered by this Court in Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another, The question posed in that case was : (SCC p. 707, para 1)

"1.... whether the criminal proceedings in question could be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the settlement that the parties had arrived at."

After adverting to Section 482 of the Code and various decisions, this Court concluded as under: (Shiji case, SCC pp. 712-13, paras 17-18)

"17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable u/s 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr PC. 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 u/s 482 CrPC 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 u/s 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 u/s 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC.

Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power u/s 482 CrPC 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 situations in which the exercise of power u/s 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 u/s 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."

On going through the factual details, earlier decision, various offences u/s 320 of the Code and invocation of Section 482 of the Code, we fully concur with the said conclusion.

In the case on hand, irrespective of the earlier dispute between Respondent 2 complainant and the appellant being Accused 3 as well as Accused 1 and 2 subsequently and after getting all the materials, relevant details, etc., the present appellant (Accused 3) sworn an affidavit with bona fide intention securing the right, title and interest in favour of Respondent 2 herein, the complainant. In such bona fide circumstances, the power u/s 482 may be exercised. Further, in view of the settlement arrived at between Respondent 2 complainant and the appellant (Accused 3), there is no chance of recording a conviction insofar as the present appellant is concerned and the entire exercise of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility.

Inasmuch as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, we are of the view that the High Court, by exercising the inherent power u/s 482 of the Code even in offences which are not compoundable u/s 320, may quash the prosecution. However, as observed in Shiji (2011) 10 SCC 705, the power u/s 482 has to be exercised sparingly 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. In other words: (SCC p. 713, para 18)

"18.... 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."

In the light of the principles mentioned above, inasmuch as Respondent 2 complainant has filed an affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the appellant (Accused 3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying the same analogy and in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of settlement insofar as the appellant herein (Accused 3) is concerned.

In view of the same, we quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 45 of 2011 registered with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B, IPC insofar as the appellant (Accused 3) is concerned.

The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above."

I have gone through the application for compromise, compromise deed and the order dated 16.12.2013 passed by the trial court refusing to compound the offence u/s 498-A, IPC and section 4 of the DP Act. The application has been signed by counsel for both the parties and the compromise deed has been signed by the accused petitioners and the respondent No. 1. The accused petitioner No.1 and the complainant respondent No. 1 have filed an application u/s 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage and along with the application also filed a draft of Rs. 10,00,000/-(ten lacs) towards dowry articles and permanent alimony. The criminal case filed by the respondent No. 1 is between her husband and mother-in-law i.e. completely private in nature and as per the judgments of the Apex Court mentioned above, ends of justice would be met in allowing the petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C in the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and the trial court is directed to decide the application for compounding of offence u/s 498A, IPC and section 4 of the DP Act and attest the compromise deed filed by the parties. For the reasons mentioned above, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The trial court is directed to attest the compromise deed in respect of section 498A, IPC and section 4 of the DP Act and the criminal proceedings may be dropped against the accused petitioners.