Chanda Papa Rao and Others vs State and Another

In these petitions, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 818 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad West and South, Ranga Reddy District in which they have been prosecuted for an offence u/s 498-A, I.P.C.

Criminal Petition No. 4705 of 1997 has been filed by the husband of the de facto complainant who is facing charge u/s 498-A, I.P.C. in Crime No. 57 of 1996, which was registered at Kukatpally Police Station on the complaint given by the de facto complainant. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that at the relevant time, the petitioner had already divorced his wife, i.e., the de facto complainant, in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U.S.A., under judgment of that Court dated 22.11.1996, which has become final. It is averred that to take revenge against the petitioner, the de facto complainant lodged a false report before Kukatpally Police Station alleging that she was subjected to harassment by himself, his brothers and sisters in connection with demand for additional dowry of Rs. 60,000/- and 10 tolas of gold. When the quash petitions came before the learned Single Judge (Vaman Rao,}., as he then was), he felt that in view of the conflicting judgments of different High Courts, it would be better that the matter be placed before the Division Bench. Thus, these petitions were placed before our Court by the directions of the Hon''ble Chief Justice.

We are not much concerned with any other details involved in the above cases. The question referred by the learned Judge for determination is as under :

"Whether in view of the settlement of marital disputes between the husband and wife, which includes an agreement that criminal proceedings will not be proceeded with, and considering the fact that the offences in question are not compoundable u/s 320, Cr.P.C, the Court by invoking the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings on the ground that ultimately during the trial the de facto complainant (victim) would disown her complaint and would not support the prosecution version and that for that reason the criminal proceedings are in any way bound to result in acquittal ?"

The question before us is when the dispute between the spouses is permanently settled either by conciliation or by taking decision to happily separate from each other by obtaining divorce from the competent Court and also making proper provision to the wife for future maintenance, proceedings u/s 498-A, I.P.C. in Criminal Court can be quashed by High Court invoking inherent jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr.P.C.

Admittedly the offence punishable u/s 498-A, I.P.C. is one, which is non-compoundable. Therefore, the question of compounding the offence does not arise. The Full Bench of this Court in Ghousia Sultana alias Ghousia Begum and Vs. Mohd. Ghouse Baig and Others, has finally settled this point. By the aforesaid ruling, the Full Bench overruled the earlier decision reported in Smt. Daggupati Jayalakshmi v. State 1993 APLJ (Cri.) 269. The aforesaid ruling was given by the Full Bench of this Court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in a case reported in Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee . This being the legal position, it is well-settled law now that even when the spouses have decided to stay amicably and lead matrimonial life happily, the offence u/s 498-A, I.P.C. lodged earlier by the wife cannot be compounded. If the hanging sword is kept on the neck of the husband, it will be very difficult to lead happy matrimonial life. In the alternative, the wife has to turn hostile and get acquittal for her husband, which cannot be a legal way of compounding the offence. Once it is held that the offence u/s 498-A, I.PC. is not compoundable, the question arises, under these circumstances, whether the High Court by invoking inherent powers vested u/s 482, Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings against the husband of the de facto complainant.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-husband submitted at the Bar that it will be proper to invoke the jurisdiction vested in the High Court u/s 482, Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel Mr. P. Gangaiah Naidu relied upon a ruling reported in Prasad Singh Paradeshi and Others Vs. State of A.P., It was the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Judge held that the criminal proceedings on the file of the Magistrate, consequent upon final settlement of family dispute between the petitioner-accused and respondent-wife, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the matter further in the Court of the Magistrate and, therefore, the proceedings were quashed.

The learned Counsel Mr. P. Gangaiah Naidu also relied upon another ruling reported in Sudesh Kumari Vs. State of Punjab and Others, in which the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court was pleased to hold as under :

"In response to the notice of motion respondents have put in appearance. They expressed their desire to make the statements. Their statements were separately recorded. It was stated by Sukhdev Chaudhary complainant that Neelam being the daughter of his brother Sat Pal, is his niece. Marriage of Neelam with Yogesh Kumar petitioner No. 3 was solemnized in October, 1996 according to Hindu rites. After some time of the marriage, petitioners started maltreating her on account of inadequate dowry and started raising demands for more dowry. Efforts were made to satisfy the petitioners. Thereafter, he made a complaint to the police of Police Station Nangal Township on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered. After the registration of the case, their common friends and relatives intervened and a compromise was effected. It was stated by him that an ex parte decree of divorce has been obtained from a Court. He further stated that he does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings qua the petitioners as he does not intend to support the allegations against the petitioners at the trial as Neelam and Yogesh Kumar have parted company for all times to come and that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed. A separate statement of Neelam was also recorded. She accepted the statement made by Yogesh Kumar as correct. She further stated that she has withdrawn all the allegations against the present petitioners."

The learned Counsel Mr. P. Gangaiah Naidu also relied upon one more ruling reported in Sita Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., XII - 1995 (4) Crimes 658. His Lordship of Rajasthan High Court was pleased to hold in paras''3 to 5 as under :

"3. The wife-Smt. Meera Sharma also appeared before me along with her Counsel. She admitted that she was living with her husband Sita Ram since October, 1992 and she was happy with him and his family members. She also stated that she is having pregnancy at advanced stage from her husband and she does not want to prosecute further the criminal case against her husband. She also stated that in case the criminal proceedings continue, it may again spoil her matrimonial relations.

It is true that the offence u/s 498-A, I.PC. is not compoundable and the learned Magistrate was right in not permitting the parties to compound the offence. But, still this Court in exercise of inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.F.C. can quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice if the circumstances so warrant even in such cases where the offence is not compoundable. This view has been taken constantly by this Court and a reference in this connection can be made to a decision in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous. Petition No. 442/1994 decided on 4.5.1994. The approach of the Court has been to maintain matrimonial tie and where the wife has started living with her husband happily, proceedings u/s 498-A, I.P.C. has been quashed by this Court. The present case is one of such cases. Here the wife is living with the husband since October, 1992 and they are living happily after conciliation. Forgive and forget is the first principle for a happy married life.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I am of the firm view that it is a fit case in which the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed as continuation of criminal proceedings against him might again spoil matrimonial relations between the spouses."

One more ruling was cited by the learned Counsel in Smt Daggupati Jayalakshmi v. State (supra). It was the judgment of this Court delivered by a Division Bench. Their Lordships of this Court were pleased to hold that by invoking the jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr.P.C, the High Court can quash the proceedings.

While supporting the contentions raised by the learned Counsel Mr. P. Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Counsel Mr. K. Khadar Baba appearing for the petitioner -in Crl. P. No. 5135 of 2000 relied upon a ruling reported in Rupabhai Bhalabhai Bharwad v. State of Gujarat and Anr 1.994 (2) Crimes 582, in which their Lordships of Gujarat High Court was pleased to hold that by invoking the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C, the Court is empowered to compound the offence under Protection of Civil Rights Act. It is the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court. We are not in agreement with the aforesaid ruling, for the reason that the Supreme Court has finally ruled in a case reported in Simrikhia v. Dolley , that no permission can be granted to compound the offences, which are not compoundable.

While opposing the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State relied upon a ruling reported in V. Balakrishna and others Vs. General Manager, MTH Division, HMT Ltd., Balanagar, Hyderabad, . This is the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in which the learned Single Judge held that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded even with the permission from the Court. We agree with that proposition. But the point raised in these petitions is not one whether the non-compoundable cases can be compounded or not ? But the point raised in these petitions is as to whether the High Court can quash the proceedings in non-compoundable cases by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482, Cr.P.C.

The learned Public Prosecutor also relied upon a ruling reported in Arun Shankar Shukla v. State, of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., in which their Lordships were pleased to hold as follows :

"It is disquieting that the High Court has overlooked the important legal aspect that the accused have a right of appeal against the order of conviction purported to have passed by the Trial Court. In such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have entertained a petition u/s 482 of the Code and stonewalled the very efficacious alternative remedy of appeal as provided in the Code. Merely because the accused made certain allegations against the trial Judge, the substantive cannot be by-passed."

After going through the rulings and the arguments advanced before us, the question to be determined by us is whether the provisions contained u/s 320, Cr.P.C. and the provisions contained u/s 482, Cr.P.C. are synonymous ? Our answer is "no" for the following reasons : If the offence is compoundable, it can be compounded u/s 320, Cr.P.C. For the purposes of compounding the offence, there must be a joint petition by the defacto complainant and the accused. More important feature of Section 320, Cr.P.C. is that the Court cannot refuse permission to the parties to compound the offence when they have expressed their willingness to compound the offence. Whereas the jurisdiction vested in the High Court u/s 482, Cr.P.C. is much higher. While exercising the jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr.P.C, the High Court has to use the power very sparingly and in an exceptional circumstances as laid down by the Supreme Court in a case reported in Smirikhia v. Dotley Mukherjee (supra). If the joint petition is filed by the defacto complainant and the accused for quashing the proceedings, the High Court cannot quash the proceedings only because the parties have settled the dispute. To give illustration, it can be said that if in a murder case the father of the deceased enters into a compromise with the accused and both of them file a petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against the accused, the powers cannot be used by the High Court as it is against the public policy and also immoral. In other words, it is to say that the High Court has to exercise the powers very cautiously and sparingly.

In matrimonial disputes for one reason or the other, if the relations between the parties are strained and the wife defacto complainant files a complaint u/s 498-A, I.P.C. against the husband and subsequently she realises that the complaint was filed due to some misunderstanding or other, and if she really repents and if the Court is satisfied that the parties have compromised their disputes and they are staying happily as wife and husband, the misunderstandings created between them have been totally wiped out and in that event, the High Court can exercise the power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint filed against the petitioner-accused.

The principle underlying the above decision is that the Courts have to save the institution of the marriage. The Court by refusing to exercise the jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr.P.C. cannot destroy the family institutions. Therefore, when the matrimonial disputes are finally settled and the Court is satisfied fully that the disputes have been settled and the parties are staying happily, there will be nothing wrong in exercising the jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint against the husband. By exercising such jurisdiction, family will be saved from further calamities.

To give one more example, the dispute is settled between the parties and both the parties are satisfied that they cannot live as wife and husband any more and both of them take wise decision to separate from each other, the proper provision is made by the husband for the maintenance of the wife, the matrimonial relations between ,the parties are put to an end by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. In that event also the husband cannot be made to face a drama of facing trial u/s 498-A, I.P.C. Whatever the examples given by us, they are not exhaustive but they are only illustrative. Therefore, we are of the considered view that depending upon the facts of each case, the High Court can exercise the jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr.P.C. to meet the ends of justice and to stop the abuse of process of law. Reference made by the learned Single Judge is answered accordingly.

The criminal petitions posted before us be placed before the learned Single Judge to dispose of those petitions with some, guidelines issued by this Bench.