Non-compoundable offences like section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be compounded, but in cases of genuine compromise, criminal complaints arising out of matrimonial discord can be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of any Court to secure ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

S. K. SAHOO, J.

This is an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners to quash the criminal proceeding in I.C.C. Case No. 41 of 1995 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar giving rise to Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2000 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar and to acquit the petitioners of the charge under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The opp.party no.2 Smt. Madhuri Nayak @ Parida is the wife of petitioner no.1 Abhimanyu Parida and other petitioners are her in-laws. She filed a complaint petition against the petitioners in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar which was registered as I.C.C. Case No. 41 of 1995, on the basis of which the petitioners faced trial under sections 498/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar vide judgment and order dated 05.02.2000 found the petitioners guilty under sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo S.I. for thirty days. The petitioners preferred an appeal in the Court of Session which is sub-judiced in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2000.

4. A joint compromise petition was filed under section 320 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Appellate Court by the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 indicating therein that in view of the compromise between the parties, it is not desirable that the case should proceed any further and therefore, permission for compromise be granted and the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court be set aside.

5. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 22.06.2005 rejected the petition holding that such compromise petition does not come within the purview of section 320 of Cr.P.C.

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Appellate Court in rejecting the compromise petition, the petitioners have invoked the inherent power of this Court for appropriate relief.

7. Mr. L.N. Rayatsingh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since the case arises out of matrimonial dispute and the parties have settled their dispute amicably and they filed a joint compromise petition before the learned Appellate Court, the Court should not have rejected such petition and posted the case for hearing of the Criminal Appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B.S. Joshi -Vrs.-State of Haryana reported in (2003) 25 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 99.

8. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand contended that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court in rejecting the compromise petition, as the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not a compoundable one and subsection (9) of section 320 of Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that no offence shall be compounded except as provided under the said section and therefore, the inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to bypass the mandatory provision under section 320 of Cr.P.C.

9. Admittedly, the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not a compoundable offence. In case of B.S. Joshi (supra), a prayer was made by filing an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court to quash the first information report which was registered under sections 498-A/323/406 of the Indian Penal Code at Central Faridabad police station at the instance of the wife on the ground that the matter was amicably settled between the parties. The said prayer was turned down on the ground that the offences are not compoundable and therefore, the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to bypass the mandatory provision under section 320 of Cr.P.C. When the matter was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after dis