Madhusudan Sahu and Another vs State of Orissa and Another

B.R. Sarangi, J.—The petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nayagarh in Crl. Appeal No. 115/37 of 2002/1998 rejecting the application for compromise on the ground that the offences under Sections 498A, IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act are not compoundable. Mr. P.K. Maharaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that during pendency of the appeal, a compromise petition was filed by the parties but the same was rejected as the offence u/s 498A is not compoundable. He further states that this Court has the inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes. Therefore, he seeks for quashing of the entire proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Mr. Zafarullah, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 vehemently objected to the same.

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 vehemently objected the prayer of the petitioners. He states that even though such compromise petition has been filed by the parties but subsequently the petitioners have not complied with the condition stipulated therein.

Perused the L.C.R. and the compromise petition filed by the parties. It has been specifically stated in the compromise petition that parties desire to compromise the matter and have expressed their views that since they have amicably settled the matter, they want to withdraw their respective cases pending before the Courts. Both parties have given their signatures duly identified by their respective counsel in the compromise petition dated 22.12.1998. In the meantime, 15 years have elapsed.

The Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, has held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash the criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code. Further, the Apex Court also held that it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. The apex Court also in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private and the parties are willing to settle their disputes amicably. The facts of the case in hand are akin to the facts in B.S. Joshi (supra). Therefore, applying the ratio decided in the cases of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others (supra) and B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court, for the ends of justice, quashes the proceeding in exercise of power conferred u/s 482, Cr.P.C. in Crl. Appeal No. 115/37 of 2002/1998 arising out of G.R. Case No. 60 of 1991 even though the offence u/s 498A, IPC is non-compoundable in nature.

Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.