IMPORTANT POINT
Power of High court under section 482 is not limited or affected by section 493 IPC or sections 3/ 4, Dowry prohibition Act which are not compoundable, or sections 320 CrPC. There is a distinction between compounding of an offence and quashing of criminal case.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the High Court [High Court of Judicature at Allahabad] dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short the Cr.P.C.) challenging the charge sheet filed against them. The High Court while rejecting Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition directed the accused appellants to surrender before the Court concerned within 30 days from the date of order and in case they do so within the stipulated period and apply for bail the same was liable to be considered and decided in view of law laid down by full bench of High Court in case of Amrawati and Another vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 affirmed by this court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

3. Shorn of unnecessary details the brief facts which led to the filling of this appeal can be summarised as under:-

Respondent No. 2 lodged First Information Report with Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly under Section 493 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants herein which was registered as case crime No. 431 of 2014. The allegations made in the F.I.R. were that Respondent No. -2 approached Appellants with the proposal of marriage of his daughter Jyoti with Appellant No. 1. On 30th June, 2013 the appellants visited the house of Respondent No. 2 and after meeting his daughter the proposal was finalised. On 21.07.2013, ring ceremony was performed and date of marriage was scheduled for 19.11.2013. Thereafter, Appellant No. 2 started visiting the house of complainant/respondent no. 2. frequently and misleading his daughter Jyoti that now since the marriage is finalised and only ceremony of ‘feras’ remains to be performed took her for outings on various occasions. On 16.08.2013 appellant No. 2 induced Jyoti to his room and established physical relationship with her. However, subsequently thereto the appellant started making demand of dowry of Rs. 5 Lakh. A complaint in this regard was made before Mahila Thana but no action was taken. On coming to know that marriage of Appellant No. 2 was settled with some other girl for a handsome amount of dowry, the First Information Report was being lodged.

4. The matter was investigated by the concerned Police Station and a charge sheet was filed against the appellants, which was challenged before the High Court by way of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. The case set up by the appellants before the High Court was that behaviour of the complainant and his family members changed after the date of marriage was fixed and they refused to share the expenses of marriage, which was settled between the parties to be shared equally. Further, a demand of Rs. 10 Lakhs was made from the appellants with a threat to implicate them in a false case in case the demand was not fulfilled. It was further pleaded that Appellant No. 2 made an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the ACJM against the complainant and his other family members. During the pendency of proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. a complaint was made by Respondent No. 2 in the Mahila Thana. The inspector in-charge of Mahila Thana summoned both the parties where the dispute between them was compromised. In view of the compromise arrived, the appellants did not press the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. However, the Complainant-Respondent No. 2 filed the First Information Report after about 10 months of the compromise.

6. The High Court finding that there was no justification for quashing the charge sheet dismissed the petition.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate and consider that the fresh criminal action can not be launched on the basis of the same cause of action, which was already settled 10 months back by way of compromise which was acted upon by bo