SUSHIL HARKAULI, J.

( 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.

( 13 ) IT was hea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document