Back
1999 Supreme(Del) 703
High Court Of Delhi
KAMAL DHAWAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 681 of 1996
Decided On : 09/06/1999
H.J.S.AHLUVALIA, RAJIV AVASTHI, Satish Tamta
The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to circumvent or nullify the express provisions of the Code or to subvert legal interdicts written in the same Code.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - NON-COMPOUNDABLE OFFENCES - COMPROMISE BETWEEN PARTIES - LEGALITY - SECTION 320(9) OF CRPC - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 482 CANNOT BE USED TO COMPOUND NON-COMPOUNDABLE OFFENCES - AGREEMENT TO COMPOUND NON-COMPOUNDABLE OFFENCES IS VOID - DECISION IN SATISH GHATHWAL V. STATE & ANR. RENDERED PER INCURIAM.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings arising from two FIRs alleging dowry harassment and assault (Section 498A/406 IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 341/506 IPC) on the basis of a compromise agreement between the parties. The petitioners argued that the proceedings should be quashed to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice under Section 482 CrPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses based on a compromise agreement between the parties. Such an order would amount to compounding of non-compoundable offenses, which is expressly prohibited by Section 320(9) of the CrPC. The court further held that the decision in Satish Ghathwal v. State & Anr., which allowed quashing of criminal proceedings in a similar case, was rendered per incuriam as it failed to consider the statutory prohibition against compounding non-compoundable offenses.
Issues: 1. Whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be used to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses based on a compromise agreement between the parties? 2. Whether the decision in Satish Ghathwal v. State & Anr. was rendered per incuriam?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses based on a compromise agreement between the parties. Such an order would amount to compounding of non-compoundable offenses, which is expressly prohibited by Section 320(9) of the CrPC. 2. The decision in Satish Ghathwal v. State & Anr. was rendered per incuriam as it failed to consider the statutory prohibition against compounding non-compoundable offenses.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be used to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses based on a compromise agreement between the parties.
( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed two separate petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 267/92 registered under Sections 498-A/406, IPC, at Police Station Vinay Nagar, New Delhi and pending on the file of Ms. Sunita Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi as well as the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 248/92 registered under Sections 341 /506, Indian Penal Code at Police Station Defence Colony, New Delhi and pending on the file of Ms. Neena Bansal Krisluia, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. I propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common order.
( 2 ) THE preamble of the prosecution reveals that on 18. 1. 1991 the respondent No. 2, Smt. Sangeeta Dhawan was married to the petitioner, Kamal Dhawan. The petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage, which projected a shadow on marital life of the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The married life of respondent No. 2 became gloomy and she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. The members of the family of respondent No. 2 s husband, namely Vijay Dhawan, Smt. Bimla Dhawan and Panalal Dhawan took an active role in perpetrating torture on the respondent No. 2. Consequently, respondent No. 2 lodged two separate FIRs against the petitioners. FIR No. 267/92 was lodged under Sections 406/498-A, Indian Penal Code at the Police Station Vinay Nagar, New Delhi and the FIR No. 248/92 under Sections 341/506, Indian Penal Code was lodged at Police Station Defence Colony, New Delhi. Investigation pursuant to the said reports culminated into submission of two separate charge-sheets against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioner, Kamal Dhawan and the respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement, whereby they settled their disputes. As per agreement, a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 was to be paid to the respondent No. 2. In terms of the compromise, the petitioner, Kamal Dhawan and the respondent No. 2 obtained a decree of divorce under Section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the petitioner, Kamal Dhawan paid a sum of Rs. l,25,000. 00 to the respondent No. 2, the balance amount of Rs. l,25,000. 00 was agreed to be paid to the respondent No. 2 at the time of quashment of the criminal proceedings arising out of the First Information Reports mentioned above. It is alleged that the parties have already settled all their disputes amicably and the petitioner, Kamal Dhawan has already paid a sum of Rs. l,25,000. 00 to the respondent No. 2 in terms of the compromise and further the respondent No. 2 had agreed to get the criminal proceedings quashed on payment of Rs. l,25,000. 00 , the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR Nos. 267/92 and 248/92 and pending on the files of the concerned Court are liable to be quashed under Section 482, Cr. P. C.
( 3 ) BOTH these petitions have been opposed by the respondents. The respondent No. 2 resisted the petitioners contending that she was coerced to enter into a compromise as alleged by the petitioner, Kamal Dhawan. It is alleged that the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of an agreement, which is mid ab initio and further, the quaslment of the said proceedings would amount to granting permission to compound the non-compoundable offences, which is impermissible in law.
( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner Kamal Dhawan and the respondent No. 2, the petitioners are entitled to have the criminal proceedings quashed under Section 482, Cr-P. C. inasmuch as allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Reliance is placed on decision of this Court in Satish Ghathwal v. State and Anr. , 75 (1998) DLT 370 in support of the said contention. In that case after initiation of criminal proceedings under Sections 498a/406/34, IPC, parties entered in
