Back
2004 Supreme(All) 463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUSHIL HARKAULI, AMAR SARAN
RAJEEV VERMA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P - Respondents
CRI. M. W. P. 1425 Of 2001
Decided On : 03/05/2004
A.K.Aditya
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings and the need for permission from the Court for compounding offenses under Section 498-A IPC.
Headnote:
498-A IPC - Quashing of Charge-Sheet - Sections 498-A/504/506, IPC, Sections 3/4 D. P. Act - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P. C., Section 320, Cr. P. C., and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court highlighted the interpretation of the inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, the compounding of offenses, and the need for permission from the Court for compounding offenses under Section 498-A IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The husband and petitioners sought quashing of the charge-sheet on the grounds of alleged concocted allegations and a written compromise between the husband and wife. An interim stay of arrest was granted, indicating the loss of interest in the litigation by the wife's father and the alleged compromise not being fabricated or a result of coercion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that continuing the criminal proceedings would be a drain on resources and unlikely to result in conviction if the girl, her father, and the witnesses do not support the prosecution story in Court. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the charge-sheet.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of the charge-sheet based on alleged concocted allegations and a written compromise between the husband and wife, and the interpretation of the inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C., and the need for permission from the Court for compounding offenses under Section 498-A IPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the charge-sheet.
( 1 ) THE respondent no. 4 who is the father of the wife Sharda devi lodged an FIR against the husband, who is the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioners No. 2 to 5 at P. S. Phoolpur. District varanasi under Sections 498-A/504/506, ipc read with Sections 3/4 D. P. Act which was registered as Case Crime No. 225 of 1997. After investigation final report was submitted by the police, which was accepted by C. J. M. Varanasi.
( 2 ) A suit for divorce was instituted on 28-8-1999 by the petitioners. On 7-12-1999 written statement was filed in the suit. On 10-2-2000 another FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 4 at Mahila Thana, allahabad against the petitioners under Section 498-A, IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act which was registered as Case Crime No. 112 of 2000. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted by the police being Charge-Sheet No. 17 of 2000 dated 28-12-2000 under sections 498-A, IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act.
( 3 ) THIS writ petition prays for quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that the above sequence of events referred above indicate that the allegations in the FIR have been concocted to create a pressure after notice of the divorce suit.
( 4 ) THE other and more important ground is that the real parties to the dispute i. e. the husband and wife have settled the matter by mutual consent and there has been a written compromise in which the parties have agreed to drop air the proceedings against each other including the criminal case in which charge-sheet has been submitted. Paragraph No. 4 of the compromise annexed as Annexure-8 to this writ petition states that the lady and her father (respondent No. 4) have agreed to give statement in favour of the accused in the police station as well as Court in the criminal case.
( 5 ) IN this writ petition an interim stay of arrest was granted by order dated 20-3-2001, but the respondent No. 4 has not put in appearance which would indicate that the respondent No. 4 and his daughter have lost interest in the litigation and the alleged compromise is not fabricated or result of coercion. This in effect means that the parties have compounded the alleged offence.
( 6 ) THE said offences are not compound-able.
( 7 ) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in 2003 (51) All LR 222 : (AIR 2003 sc 1386 : 2003 Cri LJ 2028) that in a proper case the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or com plaint and Section 320, Cr. P. C. which deals with the compounding offence does not limit or effect such powers of the High Court (vide paragraph 13 of the law report ).
( 8 ) IN the same decision the Supreme court has also laid down that the quashing can be done under Art. 226 of the constitution of India also, notwithstanding Section 320, Cr. P. C.
( 9 ) IN the liglt of the above law declared by the Supreme Court and in view of the facts mentioned above we are of the opinion that in the interest of both sides to put an end to these criminal proceedings, because even if the proceedings are not quashed, they are unlikely to result in conviction if the girl, her father and the witnesses do not support the prosecution story in Court.
( 10 ) CONTINUING such futile proceedings would be an unnecessary drain upon the time, money and other resources not only of the parties and witnesses, but also of the court.
( 11 ) IN the circumstances, we allow this writ petition and quash the charge-sheet No. 17 of 2000 dated 28-12-2000. AMAR SARAN, J. :
( 12 ) I have had the benefit of reading the concise and lucid reasons given by my learned brother in his judgment. I am in entire agreement with the reasoning of my brother and his proposed order quashing the charge-sheet in this case on merits. But a few words of my own are needed because I think that a recommendation should be made to the Law commission for making an offence under Section 498-A IPC compoundable.
