Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Section 482 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) Is Not Controlled By Section 320 Cr.P.C.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Prem Shankar Pandey & Others Vs. State Of U.P. & Another On 18/08/2009 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : APPLICATION U/S 482 NO. 16003 OF 2009
CORAM : Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

AFR 
Reserve 

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16003 Of 2009 

Petitioner :- Prem Shankar Pandey & Others 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another 
Petitioner Counsel :- Raghavendra Dwivedi,S. Dwivedi 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Yadvendra Dwivedi 

Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma,J. 

By Means Of This Application Under Section 482 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure (in Short, 'the Cr.P.C.'), The Applicants (1) Prem Shakar Pandey, (2) Sanjay Pandey, (3) Guddan (4) Rajal, (5) Sonu And (6) Smt. Siyarani Have Invoked Inherent Jurisdiction Of This Court For Quashing The Proceedings Of Criminal Case No. 7144 Of 2005 (State Vs. Prem Shankar Pandey And Others) Arising Out Of Case Crime No. 136 Of 2001, Under Section 498A, 323, I.P.C. And 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar Pending In The Court Of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar. 
2. Shorn Of Unnecessary Details, The Facts Leading To The Filing Of The Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., In Brief, Are That Marriage Of Applicant No. 1 Prem Shankar Pandey And Opposite Party No. 2 Smt. Rubey Pandey Took Place On 28th June 1999, But Subsequently Some Misunderstanding And Disputes Were Developed Between The Couple, As A Result Of Which Smt. Rubey Pandey Lodged An FIR On 18.06.2001 At P.S. Mahrajpur (Kanpur Nagar), Where A Case Under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. And 3/4 D.P. Act Was Registered At Crime No. 136 Of 2001 Against The Applicants. After Investigation, Final Report Was Submitted By The Police. Against That Final Report, Smt. Rubey Pandey Filed Protest Petition. ACMM Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar Vide Order Dated 11.01.2005 Summoned The Accused Persons To Face The Trial Under Section 498A, 323 IPC And 3/4 D.P. Act After Rejecting The Final Report. On The Basis Of That Summoning Order, Crl. Case No. 7144 Of 2005 Was Registered Against The Applicants. During Pendency Of That Case, The Parties Settled Their Dispute Amicably In The Year 2006 And In Pursuance Of That Settlement, The Applicant Prem Shankar Pandey And Smt. Rubey Pandey Began To Live Together. As A Result Of The Settlement Entered Into Between The Parties, The Applicants Have Invoked The Inherent Jurisdiction Of This Court To Quash The Proceeding Of Aforesaid Criminal Case. 
3. I Have Heard Arguments Of Sri Raghavendra Dwivedi, Advocate, Appearing For The Applicants, Sri Yadvendra Dwivedi, Advocate, Representing The Complainant/opposite Party No. 2 And Learned AGA For The State. 
4. It Was Submitted By Learned Counsel For The Applicants That No Useful Purpose Would Be Served To Continue The Proceedings Of Criminal Case Pending In The Court Below, Because The Parties Have Settled Their Dispute Amicably Outside The Court And Applicant No. 1 And O.P. No. 2 Are Living Together Peacefully. For This Submission, My Attention Was Drawn Towards The Counter Affidavit Filed By O.P. No. 2 Smt. Rubey Pandey On 27.07.2009. It Was Also Submitted By Learned Counsel For The Applicant That Although Section 498A IPC And 3/4 D.P. Act Are Not Compoundable, But This Court Under Its Inherent Power Can Quash The Proceeding Of Aforesaid Criminal Case. For This Submission Reliance Has Been Placed On B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State Of Haryana And Another [2003 (46) ACC 779]. 
5. The Learned AGA On The Other Hand, Contended That The Offences Punishable Under Section 498A IPC And ¾ D.P. Act Are Not Compoundable And Since There Is Specific Bar Under Section 320 (9) Cr.P.C. To Compound The Offences, Which Are Not Compoundable Under Section 320 (1) And (2) Cr.P.C., Hence This Court Cannot Quash The Proceedings Of Aforesaid Criminal Case. 
6. I Have Carefully Considered The Submissions Made On Behalf Of The Respective Parties And The Facts Involved In This Case. I Am Not Inclined To Accept The Aforesaid Contention Of Learned AGA. In My Opinion, In Appropriate Cases Where The Dispute Is Of A Personal Nature And The Parties Have Settled The Dispute Amicably, The High Court In Exercise Of Its Inherent Power Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Can Quash The Criminal Proceedings Even In Those Cases Where The Offences Are Non- Compoundable. Reference In This Context May Be Made To The Case Of Manoj Sharma Vs. State And Others 2009 (64) ACC 320, In Which The Criminal Proceedings Arising Out Of The FIR Under Section 420/ 468/ 471/ 34/120B IPC Was Quashed By Hon'ble Apex Court On The Basis Of The Settlement Arrived At Between The Parties. Section 320 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Read In Isolation. It Has To Be Read Along With Other Provisions Of The Code. One Such Other Provision Is Section 482 Cr.P.C. Which Reads Thus:- 
S. 482. Nothing In This Code Shall Be Deemed To Limit Or Affect The Inherent Powers 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. 
7. The Words "Nothing In This Code" Used In Section 482 Is A Non Obstante Clause, And Give It Overriding Effect Over Other Provisions In The Cr.P.C. The Words "or Otherrwise To Secure The Ends Of Justice" In Section 482 Implies That To Secure The Interest Of Justice, Sometimes (though Only In Very Rare Cases) The High Court Can Pass An Order In Violation Of A Provision In The Cr.P.C. 
8. It Is True That In Certain Decisions Of The Hon'ble Apex Court, It Has Been Observed That The Power Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Exercised To Do Something Which Is Expressly Barred Under The Code, Vide Mosst Simrikhia Vs. Dolley Mukherjee (AIR 1990 SC 1605), R.P. Kapur Vs. State Of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal And Another (AIR 1981 SC 736). 
9. However, As Held By The Hon'ble Apex Court In Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), In My Opinion Afore-cited Judgments Cannot Be Read As A Euclid's Formula, Since It Is Well Settled That Judgements Of A Court Cannot Be Read Mechanically And Like A Euclid's Theorem. See Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal Vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University (2008 (8) JT 621) And Bharat Petrolium Corporation Ltd. And Another Vs. N.R. Vairamani And Another (AIR 2004 SC 4778). In Rare And Exceptional Cases A Departure Can Be Made From The Principle Laid Down In The Decisions Referred To In Para 8 Above, As Observed By The Hon'ble Aopex Court In B.S. Joshi Vs. State Of Haryana (supra). 
10. Section 320 (9) Cr.P.C. Was Creating A Lot Of Difficulty And Hardship To The Public And Hence A Way Out Was Found By Hon'ble Apex Court In The Case Of B.S. Joshi (supra) , In Which It Has Been Observed That The High Court Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Can Quash The Criminal Proceedings, If It Comes To The Conclusion That The Interest Of Justice So Requires E.g; Where There Would Almost Be No Chance Of Conviction. In A Case Under Section 498A IPC, If The Parties Enter Into A Compromise, The Chances Of A Ultimate Conviction Are Bleak And Hence, No Useful Purpose Would Be Served By Allowing The Criminal Proceedings To Continue And They Should, Therefore, Be Quashed By Exercising Power Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In B.S. Joshi's Case (supra), The Hon'ble Apex Court Devised A Creative Solution To The Problem And Quashed The Proceedings In Exercise Of Its Inherent Power. The Said Decision Was Followed By Hon'ble Apex Court In Nikhil Marchent Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation And Another JT 2008 (9) SC 192. 
11. The Following Observations Made By The Hon'ble Apex Court In B.S. Joshi's Case (supra), In Para 12 Of The Report Are Worth-mentioning:- 
"Marriage Is A Scared Ceremony, The Main Purpose Of Which Is To Enable The Young Couple To Settle Down In Life And Live Peacefully. But Little Matrimonial Skirmishes Suddenly Erupt Which Often Assume Serious Proportions Resulting In Commission Of Heinous Crimes In Which Elders Of The Family Are Also Involved With The Result That Those Who Could Have Counselled And Brought About Rapprochement Are Rendered Helpless On Their Being Arrayed As Accused In The Criminal Case. There Are Many Other Reasons Which Need Not Be Mentioned Here For Not Encouraging Matrimonial Litigation So That The Parties May Ponder Over Their Defaults And Terminate Their Disputes Amicably By Mutual Agreement Instead Of Fighting It Out In A Court Of Law Where It Takes Years And Years To Conclude And In That Process The Parties Lose Their "young" Days In Chasing Their " Cases" In Different Courts. 
There Is No Doubt That The Object Of Introducing Chapter XX-A Containing Section 498-A In The Indian Penal Code Was To Prevent The Torture To A Woman By Her Husband Or By Relatives Of Her Husband. Section 498-A Was Added With A View To Punishing A Husband And His Relatives Who Harass Or Torture The Wife To Coerce Her Or Her Relatives To Satisfy Unlawful Demands Of Dowry. The Hyper-technical View Would Be Counter Productive And Would Act Against Interests Of Women And Against The Object For Which This Provision Was Added. There Is Every Likelihood That Non-exercise Of Inherent Power To Quash The Proceedings To Meet The Ends Of Justice Would Prevent Women From Settling Earlier. That Is Not The Object Of Chapter XXA Of Indian Penal Code." 

12. In Para 13 Of The Report In B.S. Joshi's Case (supra), The Hon'ble Apex Court Has Held That The High Court In Exercise Of Its Inherent Power Can Quash Criminal Proceedings Or FIR Or Complainant And Section 320 Of The Code Does Not Limit Or Affect The Powers Under Section 482 Of The Code. Therefore, In View Of The Afore-cited Observations Made By The Hon'ble Apex Court In B.S. Joshi Case (supra), With A View To Do Complete Justice, This Court In Exercise Of Its Inherent Power Can Quash The Proceedings Of Aforesaid Criminal Case, Because The Parties Have Settled Their Dispute Amicably Out Of The Court And They Are Living Now Peacefully After Arriving At A Settlement In The Year 2006. 
13. Consequently, The Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Is Allowed. The Proceeding Of Criminal Case No. 7144 Of 2005 (State Vs. Prem Shankar Pandey And Others), Under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. And 3/4 D.P. Act, Arising Out Of Case Crime No. 136 Of 2001, P.S. Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar, Pending In The Court Of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar, Is Hereby Quashed.

Go to Navigation