AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda
The learned Government Pleader takes notice for first respondent Sri B.R. Ravi Kumara, learned Counsel has filed power for second respondent.
The first petitioner and second respondent have filed a joint memo reading as hereunder:
It is submitted that petitioners and 2nd respondent have reconciled all the differences between the parties and compromised the matter on 3.10.2011 and since then, the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 are happily residing together along with their child In view of the said amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and in order to bring peace in the family, this joint memo is filed for quashing the FIR and complaint in Cr. No. 262/2011 pending before the junior division civil Judge & J.M.F.C. at Hosakote,
The 2nd respondent has no objection to quash the FIR, complaint in Cr. No. 262/2011 pending before the Court of junior division civil Judge & J.M.F.C. at Hosakote.
Wherefore both the parties pray that this Hon''ble Court be, pleased to take this joint memo on record and quash the FIR, complaint, in Cr. No. 262/2011 pending before the junior division civil Judge & J.M.F.C. at Hosakote in the ends of justice.
The first petitioner (husband) and second respondent (wife) submits that they are living together and they have resolved all their differences.
This petition is filed to quash FIR complaint in Crime No. 262/2011 pending trial for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 IPC r/w. Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The learned Government Pleader relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2011 AIR SCW 305 (in the case of Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab and another) would submit that this Court by exercising its power u/s 482 Cr. P.C. cannot convert a non-compoundable offence to a compoundable offence. The learned Government Advocate would submit that in the case of Gian Singh, the Supreme Court has held that the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in AIR 2009 SC 428 (in the case ofNikhil Merchant -vs-Central Bureau of Investigation and another); B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1171 (in the case of Manoj Sharma -vs- State and others) do not appear to be correctly decided. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s case has directed that the matter be placed before the larger Bench to consider the correctness of the aforesaid three decisions.
The learned Counsel for petitioners and respondent relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2012 AIR SCW 445 (in the case of Shiji alias Pappu and others -vs- Radhika and another) submit that if the Court is satisfied that the proceedings have to quashed u/s 482 Cr. P.C. by taking into consideration, the settled principles of law and the scope of Section 482 Cr. P.C., the fact that the offences alleged in the impugned proceedings are non-compoundable would come in the way of quashing the proceedings.
The learned Counsel would submit that in the case of Shiji alias Pappu and others -VS- Radhika and another (a subsequent judgment), the Supreme Court has referred to the earlier judgments reported in AIR 2009 SC 428 (in the case of Nikhil Merchant -vs- Central Bureau of Investigation and another); AIR 2003 SC 1386 (in the case of B.S. Joshi -vs- State of Haryana) and AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1172 (in the case of Manoj Sharma -vs-State and others). Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that notwithstanding the fact that the case pending before the Court below involves non-compoundable offences there is no need to continue with the proceedings as the parties have settled matrimonial disputes.
In the decision reported in 2011 AIR SCW 305 (Gian Singh''s case), the case sought to be quashed involved an offence u/s 120B IPC, which is a non-compoundable offence, The accused had been convicted and the appeal against judgment of punishment was pending before the learned Sessions Judge. Before the appellate court, an application was filed for compounding of offences. Thereafter, petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing the FIR was filed on the ground that the parties have compounded the offence. The petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. was dismissed by the High Court and the same was taken before the Supreme Court in Spl. Leave Appeal (Crl) No. 828/2010.
In the subsequent judgment reported in 2012 AIR SCW 445, the accused and complainant were the owners of the two adjacent properties, The first information was registered for offences punishable under Sections 354 & 394 of IPC. A petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. was filed to quash the proceedings and when the petition was pending for consideration, the parties/appellants arrived at a compromise and sought for quashing of the proceedings. The Supreme Court referring to the earlier judgments reported in
i) AIR 2009 SC 675
ii) AIR 1977 SC 1489
iii) AIR 1988 SC 709
iv) AIR 2003 SC 1386
v) AIR 1978 SC 47
vi) AIR 2006 SCW 2287
vii) AIR 2009 SC 428
viii) AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1171
has held;
It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable u/s 320, IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power u/s 482, Cr. P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercise 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 on exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the Trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution u/s 482 Cr. P.C. 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 an 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 Cr. P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320, Cr. P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power u/s 482 Cr. P.C. 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, fir reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing bur 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 an 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 widle 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.
The decision reported in 2011 AIR SCW 306 (in the case of State of Kerala v. Raneef) was rendered by the two judges on 3.1.2011. The decision reported in 2012 AIR SCW 445 (in the case of Shift alias Pappu and Ors. -vs- Radhika and Another) was rendered by the two judges on 14.11.2011.
In a decision reported in AIR 1980 KARNATAKA 93 (in the case of Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi -vs- West Patent Press C, Ltd. and another), a full Bench of this Court has held:
If two decisions of the Supreme Court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and if both Benches of the Supreme Court consist of equal number of Judges, the later of the two decisions should be followed by High Courts and other Court.
In the case on hand, the second respondent has filed first information alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 IPC r/w. Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband (first petitioner)
The first petitioner and second respondent are before this Court, They submit that they have reconciled all the differences between them and compromised the matter on 3.10.2011 and since then, they are happily living together along with their child.In the circumstances, even if the proceedings before the court below are continued and a trial is held, there are no chances of recording a conviction and the entire exercise of a trial would be an exercise in futility. Therefore, following the decision reported in 2012 AIR SCW 445 (in the case of Shiji alias Pappu and others -vs-Radhika and another) and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I accept the petition and quash the F.I.R. complaint in Crime No. 262/2011 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC at Hosakote.