Ramesh Chand and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

V.S. Kokje, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dropping or quashing the proceedings u/s 498A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jetaran in Regular Case No. 298/93. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the case good sense prevailed in the minds of the parties and during the course of trial, they arrived at an amicable settlement and, therefore, both the parties do not desire that the prosecution should continue. As the offences are not compoundable the trial court has refused to compound them. The learned Counsel has relied on several Single Bench decisions of this Court. In some of these cases, the trial Court was directed to grant permission to compound the offence and in some of them proceedings were quashed u/s 482 Cr. P.C. by this Court. Two questions, therefore, arise for determination in the case: (i) whether this Court can direct the trial court to grant permission to compound an offence which is specifically a non-compoundable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure and (ii) whether inherent powers of this Court u/s 482 Cr. P.C. can be used to quash proceedings in which parties have compounded specifically declared to be non-compoundable by the Code of Criminal Procedure by mutual agreement.

The first question has been directly answered in the negative by a Full Bench of this Court in Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1993 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 86. It was held by the Full Bench that permission to compound a non-compoundable offence cannot be granted by the Court. The Single Bench decisions directing the trial court to grant permission to compound non-compoundable offence, are, therefore, without any force of law as they are directly contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court. The Single Bench decisions in Gurcharan Kaur v. State of Rajasthan 1993 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 96, in Smt. Jasoda and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1992 Cr. L.R. (Raj) 530 and in Ishwarilal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1992 RCC 434 (Raj) therefore, do not lay down good law in view of decision of the full Bench in Mohan Singh''s case (supra). The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1988 2111 (SC) in which referring to an earlier decision of Supreme Court in Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1987 (2) JT 361, in the special circumstances of the case permission to compound a non-compoundable offence was directed to be granted. In this decision also, the Supreme Court does not seem to have laid down any law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, but it seems that the Supreme Court has acted in the special circumstances of the case under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Mahesh Chandra''s case, therefore, cannot be an authority for the proposition that permission to compound a non-compoundable offence can be granted by a High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The second question as to whether proceedings can be quashed u/s 482 Cr. P.C. on the ground that parties have compounded an offence which is non-compoundable under the law deserves to be considered now. Single Benches of this Court in Omprakash Modi v. State of Rajasthan 1994 (1) RLR 389. Mrs. Sudha Gupta v. State of Rajasthan 1992 RCC 525 and an unreported decision in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 683/96 decided on September 13, 1996, take the view that the proceedings could be quashed in appropriate cases u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Looking to the scheme of the Act and scope of Section 482 Cr. P.C. it cannot be said that the power u/s 482 can be used for the purpose of setting at naught a specific provision of the Code u/s 320 Cr. P.C. The High Court cannot convert a non-compoundable offence into a compoundable offence by quashing proceedings u/s 482 Cr. P.C.

The Full Bench decision in Mohansingh''s case (supra) also held in Para - 41 of the Judgment that the power u/s 482 Cr. P.C. should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. Exercise of power u/s 482 Cr. P.C. to quash proceedings on the ground that parties have settled their disputes out of Court and desire to compound a non-compoundable offence is therefore not permissible as this would amount to circumvention of the bar created by Section 320(2) Cr. P.C. The aforesaid Single Bench decisions are therefore, against the Full Bench decision in Mohansingh''s case (supra) and are no longer good law.

The Code provides adequate provisions for dealing with the situations such as the situation arising in this case. If in a case involving non-compoundable offence it appears that the parties have joined hands and there is no likelihood of any evidence forth-coming against the accused or the likelihood of some or all the witnesses turning hostile or it would not be in public interest or anyone''s interest to continue the prosecution, it is for the public prosecutor incharge of the case to withdraw from the prosecution with the consent of the Court u/s 321 of the Code. In such cases, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to consider and decide whether to withdraw from the prosecution or not. It is not the duty or concern of the Court to consider the welfare of the parties and twist the law in their favour for allowing them to do something which the law does not permit. In these circumstances, it is for the Public Prosecutor to decide whether it will be fruitful, just and proper to continue with the prosecution and not for the courts to allow the parties to do what the law forbids them from doing.

I would, therefore, refuse to interfere in exercise of powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the case. The petition is dismissed. However, the complainant in the case shall be free to approach the Public Prosecutor and pursuade him to withdraw from the prosecution u/s 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.