Advocates:
S. S. JAUHARRANBIR SINGH YADAV

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 383 of 2003

PETITIONER:

B.S. Joshi & Ors.

RESPONDENT:

State of Haryana & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/03/2003

BENCH:

Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

[Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.3416 of 2002]

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

Leave granted.

The question that falls for determination in the instant case is about the ambit of

the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Code)

read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings.

The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 has been examined by this Court in catena of

earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to m

atrimonial disputes. The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on

considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under S

ections 498A and 406, IPC not only against the husband but his other family members also. W

hen such matters are resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutu

al separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a

result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the crimi

nal proceedings or the First Information Report or complaint filed by the wife under Section

s 498A and 406, IPC, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are no

n-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, it is not permissible for the C

ourt to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.

The facts here are not in dispute. Appellant No.4 is the husband. Respondent No.2

is his wife. Their marriage had taken place on 21st July, 1999. They are living separatel

y since 15th July, 2000. Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are father, mother and younger brother of a

ppellant No.4. FIR No.8 of 2002 was registered under Section 498A/323 and 406 IPC at Police

Station, Central Faridabad at the instance of the wife on 2nd January, 2002. She has filed

an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences a

nd implied imputations. According to that affidavit, her disputes with the appellants have

been finally settled and she and Appellant No.4 have agreed for mutual divorce. The affidav

it further states that on filing of the petition for mutual divorce, statements on first mo

tion were recorded on 18th July, 2002 and 2nd September, 2002. Also that in second motion f

iled by the parties to the marriage, their statements were recorded by the Court of Addition

al District Judge, Delhi on 13th September, 2002. Counsel for respondent No.2 supporting th

e appeal also prays for quashing of the FIR. There is, however, serious opposition on behal

f of the State.

The High Court has, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition filed by the a

ppellants seeking quashing of the FIR for in view of the High Court the offences under Secti

ons 498A and 406 IPC are non-compoundable and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the C

ode cannot be invoked to bypass the mandatory provision of Section 320 of the Code. For

its view, the High Court has referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Court in Sta

te of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335]; Madhu Limaye v. The State

of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551; and Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. v. State of Orissa [AIR

1999 SC 2181].

After reproducing the seven categories of cases as given in para 102 of Bhajan Lal’s case, t

he High Court has held that the parameters, principles and guidelines for quashing of compla

ints, first information report and criminal proceedings have been settled in terms thereof a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

nd has concluded therefrom that the instant case does not fall in any of