Sumer Chand vs State of Haryana

Nirmal Singh, J.

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 1447 dated 24.10.1997 under Sections 406, 498A, 506 IPC registered at police station City Karnal and all other subsequent proceedings.

The FIR against the petitioners was registered under Sections 498A, 506, 406 IPC on the statement of Sanjana Rani complainant. The petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings on the ground that with great efforts made by both the families a written compromise dated 19.1.2000 has been effected. It has further been pleaded that both the parties have agreed to put an end to all the civil and criminal proceedings pending in various courts and they have also agreed not to keep their relation as husband and wife.

The learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the parties have settled their dispute, therefore, the parties may be allowed to compound the offence as the offences under Section 498A, 506, 406 IPC are non compoundable.

I have considered the submission made by he learned counsel for the parties. The offences under Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC are noncompoundable but taking into consideration the circumstances of each case, the High Court exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can allow the compounding of the offence in noncompoundable offences. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, AIR 1977 SC 1489, their Lordships have held as under :

"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 proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court''s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters it 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 objects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

In Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(3) RCR 332, the accused were acquitted by the trial Court and were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the Apex Court allowed the parties to compound the offence.

In Saud and another v. State of Haryana, 1988(1) CCC 388, this Court allowed the compounding of he offence though the offence was not compoundable. Reliance can also be placed upon Y. Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1987(2) SC 361, Kailash and others v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) RCR 198 , Chiranji Lal v. State of U.P., 1982(3) SCC 371, Bharat Singh v. State of M.P. and others, 1990 Suppl. SCC 62.

The complainant has appeared in the Court on 5.4.2001 and made a statement that she lodged a complaint against the petitioners and she has no objection in quashing the FIR in question. She has been identified by Shri SPS Sidhu, Advocate. At the hearing, learned counsel for the parties also submitted that the parties have got a decree of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and are living separately. They have also pointed out that Sanjana Rani has remarried and she is also having a child.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that Sanjana Rani complainant has effected a compromise with the petitioners with her free will. She has also started her new life. If the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then bad blood between the parties will not finish rather the parties will be after the blood of each other. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and it will be in the interest of the parties and larger interest of the society that the parties are allowed to compound the offence.

In view of the above discussion, the petition is accepted and FIR No. 1447 dated 24.10.1997 under Sections 406, 506 and 498A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings are quashed.