The statutory prohibition against compounding non-compoundable offenses prevents the termination of criminal proceedings, even if the parties agree to cooperate in withdrawing the FIR.

( 1 ) THIS petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. was filed alleging that petitioner No. 1 was married to respondent. No. 1 on 21/11/1993 and as they could not adjust with each other due to temperamental differences they started living separately from 20/12/1994. Respondent No. 1 lodged fir No. 760/95 under sections 498-A/406 Indian Penal Code on 15th December 1995 against the petitioners and criminal proceeding based thereon is pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. First motion under section 13-B (i) of Hindu Marriage Act was disposed of by the order dated 23/03/1996. In second motion under section 13-B (ii) of the Act Joint statement of parties was recorded on 27/05/1997 and marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent, by the order dated 31/05/1997 by an Additional District Judge. Respondent No. 1 had received her istridhan. She had also been paid the settled amount of Rs. 60,000. 00 by petitioner no. 1. It is stated that despite the undertaking given in said divorce petition the respondent No. 1 has failed to cooperate with the petitioners in getting above FIR no. 760/95 as also criminal proceeding emanating therefrom, quashed. It was prayed that FIR No. 760/95 and criminal proceeding emanating therefrom pending before a Metropolitan magistrate may be quashed.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 contested the petition by filing reply. It is not disputed that she was married to petitioner No. 1 and marriage was also dissolved by mutual consent on 31/05/1997 as alleged. However, it is stated that in addition to Rs. 60,000. 00, petitioners had agreed to pay amount of Rs. 3 lakhs after the decree of divorce was passed which amount has not been paid. Compromise which debars respondent No. 1 from claiming future maintenance is hit by section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. It is further alleged that offences under sections 406/498-A are non-compoundable and in exercise of power under section 482 criminal Procedure Code. criminal proceeding pending against petitioners cannot be legally quashed.

( 3 ) SUBMISSION advanced by Sh. L. D. Adlakha for petitioners was that pursuant to amicable settlement reached between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 , marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 31/05/1997. In second motion under section 13-B (ii) as also in statement recorded on 27/12/1997 respondent No. 1 had undertaken to make statement for withdrawal of FIR no. 760/95 and to cooperate with petitioner No. 1 for quashing criminal proceeding emanating therefrom but she has failed to do so and, therefore, said FIR and criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners deserve to be quashed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. On the other hand, relying on the decisions in Pyare Lal Gupta and Ors vs. State and another, 1999 (51) DRJ 524, the contention advanced by Sh. Rajan Kumar chaurasia for respondent No. 1 was that as the offences under sections 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable the inherent power under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. cannot be invoked to quash the FIR and proceeding based thereon pending against the petitioners. Para No. 8 of the petition under section 13-B (ii) of the Act (copy at pages 14 to 18) notices that amount of Rs. 60,000. 00 which petitioner No. 1 had agreed to pay to respondent No. 1 was towards the value of remaining dowry articles and permanent alimony. In all probabilities the value of dowry articles towards which said payment was made later on must be of more than Rs. 250. 00. Admittedly offence under section 498-A Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable. In the second Table given in Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code. the offence under section 406 Indian Penal Code has been shown to be compoundable with the permission of court where the value of property in respect of which breach of trust had b