IMPORTANT POINT
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint regarding non-compoundable offences and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 1973 does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498A, 323 and 406-Offences under-Offences under Sections 498A and 306 not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.-Petition to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution as wife and husband agreed to divorce by mutual consent-High Court refusing on ground that the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC are non-compoundable and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the code cannot be avoked to bypass the mandatory provision of Section 320 Cr.P.C.-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court can quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. irrespective of limitations under Section 320 Cr.P.C.? (Yes, in present case of matrimonial offences-Appeal allowed.
Held : 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 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A 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. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned. (Paras 13, 14, 15 and 16)

Judgement Key Points

The legal document discusses the scope of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in relation to quashing criminal proceedings, FIRs, or complaints. The key points are as follows:

Inherent Powers of High Courts: The High Court has the authority to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, FIRs, or complaints, even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, without being limited by Section 320 of Cr.P.C. (!) (!) .
Non-Compoundable Offences: Certain offences are classified as non-compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., meaning they cannot be settled by mutual agreement or compromise. However, this classification does not restrict the High Court from using its inherent powers to quash proceedings in the interest of justice (!) .
Settlement and Disputes Resolution: In matrimonial disputes, where parties seek to settle their differences amicably, the High Court can exercise its power to quash criminal proceedings if it is in the interest of justice, regardless of the non-compoundability of the offences involved (!) .
Object of Specific Legal Provisions: The purpose of certain provisions, such as those aimed at protecting women from harassment and torture, is to prevent misuse and encourage early settlement of disputes. The technical classification of offences should not hinder the administration of justice or the resolution of genuine disputes (!) (!) .
Judicial Approach: Courts are encouraged to promote amicable settlements and discourage prolonged litigation, especially in matrimonial cases. The exercise of inherent powers is a tool to prevent abuse of process and to serve the ends of justice, rather than being constrained strictly by procedural limitations (!) (!) .
Legal Principles: The exercise of inherent powers is guided by principles that aim to prevent abuse of the legal process, secure justice, and promote settlement. These powers are not confined by the restrictions of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and can be invoked to quash proceedings when appropriate (!) .
Conclusion: The document emphasizes that the High Court can, in appropriate circumstances, quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences, especially when the parties have settled their disputes amicably, and it is in the interest of justice to do so. This approach aligns with the broader objective of encouraging dispute resolution outside lengthy court proceedings (!) (!) .

In summary, the key legal principle is that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not limited by the prohibition on compounding certain offences, and these powers can be exercised to quash proceedings to serve justice and promote amicable resolutions.

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-Leave granted.

2. The question that falls for determination in the instant case is about the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings. The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 has been examined by this Court in catena of earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes. The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not only against the husband but his other family members also. When such matters are resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the First Information Report or complaint filed by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.

3. The facts here are not in dispute. Appellant No.4 is the husband. Respondent No. 2 is his wife. Their marriage had taken place on 21st July, 1999. They are living separately since 15th July, 2000. Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are father, mother and younger brother of appellant No.4. FIR No.8 of 2002 was registered under Section 498A/323 and 406 IPC at Police Station, Central Faridabad at the instance of the wife on 2nd January, 2002. She has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. According to that affidavit, her disputes with the appellants have been finally settled and she and Appellant No. 4 have agreed for mutual divorce. The affidavit further states that on filing of the petition for mutual divorce, statements on first motion were recorded on 18th July, 2002 and 2nd September, 2002. Also that in second motion filed by the parties to the marriage, their statements were recorded by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi on 13th September, 2002. Counsel for respondent No.2 supporting the appeal also prays for quashing of the FIR. There is, however, serious opposition on behalf of the State.

4. The High Court has, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition filed by the appellants seeking quashing of the FIR for in view of the High Court the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC are non-compoundable and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to bypass the mandatory provision of Section 320 of the Code. For its view, the High Court has referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335]; Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551; and Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. v. State of Orissa [AIR 1999 SC 2181].

5. After reproducing the seven categories of cases as given in para 102 of Bhajan Lal s case, the High Court has held that the parameters, principles and guidelines for quashing of complaints, first information report and criminal proceedings have been settled in terms thereof and has concluded therefrom that the instant case does not fall in any of the said categories. It is quite clear that the High Court has lost sight of the earlier part of para 102 which made it abundantly clear that the said categories of cases were being given by way of illustration. Neither the categories of cases given were exhaustive nor it could be so. Before giving those categories, it was said in Bhajan Lal s case that:

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant prov

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 332

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint regarding non-compoundable offences and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 1973 does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint regarding non-compoundable offences and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 1973 does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.