Pyare Lal Gupta and Others vs State and Another

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.—By this petition, u/s 482, Cr.P.C, the petitioners seek quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR 226/90 registered under Sections 406/498-A/34, IPC at the Police Station Tirlok Puri and pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are that on 18.5.1990, respondent No. 2 filed a written complaint against the petitioners before the Crime Against (Women) Cell, which was forwarded to the Police Station Trilok Puri. Consequently, on 19.5.1990, FIR No. 226/90 registered under Sections 406/498-A/34, IPC against the petitioners at the Police Station Trilok Puri. Investigation pursuant to the said FIR culminated into submission of a charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections against the petitioners. On 7.9.1989 respondent No. 2 filed a divorce petition u/s 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner No. 1. During the said matrimonial proceedings, respondent No. 2 and the petitioner No. 1 filed a joint petition u/s 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce by mutual consent. By the order dated 21st April, 1993, Additional District Judge, Delhi granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent u/s 13-B of the Act. As per settlement between the parties, respondent No. 2 had agreed to withdraw the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR No. 226/90 and pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.

Quashment of the present criminal proceedings is sought on the ground of the aforesaid settlement between the parties. The petition has been opposed by the respondents.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, the petitioners are entitled to have the criminal proceedings quashed u/s 482, Cr.P.C. inasmuch as allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court. It is significant to mention that the averments made in the FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2 prima facie disclose offences under Sections 498-A/306/34, IPC against the petitioners. If the criminal proceedings in respect of the aforesaid offences are quashed u/s 482, Cr.P.C. on the basis of the alleged compromise, it would amount to termination of the criminal proceedings on account of compounding of the said offences. The whole scheme of compounding of the offences is dealt with and regulated by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provisions of Section 320 of the Code are exhaustive in nature and Sub-section (9) of Section 320 is couched in a mandatory form and it lays down that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. The offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406, IPC are non-compoundable. In Ram Lal and Another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, , it was held by the Apex Court that an offence which the law declares to be non-compoundable, even with the permission of the Court, cannot be compounded at all. This judgment has been cited with approval in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Surendra Nath Mohanty and Anr Vs. State of Orissa, . In Kamal Dhawan v. The State and Anr., (Crl.M.(M) No. 681/96 decided on 6.9.1999), I have held that criminal proceedings in respect of a non-compoundable offence cannot be terminated on the ground of mutual settlement between the parties as it would run in the teeth of the statutory prohibition contained in Sub-section (9) of Section 320, Cr.P.C. Thus, what is prohibited or interdicted by the Legislature in direct terms cannot be obviated in an indirect manner by invoking provision of Section 482, Cr.P.C.

For the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed.