AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.—This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has arisen in this way:
The first petitioner is the husband of one Sayeedath Nisa. The second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are his sisters. Sayeedath Nisa gave a complaint to the concerned police-respondent that the petitioners are making down demand and inflicting cruelty upon her. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent" registered a case u/s 498A IPC in Crime No. 8 of 1999. After enquiry, the investigating officer sent the final report to the Judicial Magistrate. Nanguneri. who took cognizance of the matter in C.C.No.223 of 1999 and two witnesses were examined. The contention of the first petitioner is that he had divorced his wife already and after divorce and after disruption of the relationship of husband and wife there could not fee any dowry demand for registration of a case u/s 498A IPC He further contended that the elders of both the family met and arrived at an amicable settlement, considering the interest of the complainant and the accused and the future of the child. As per the compromise, he had pronounced Talak on his wife. The wife had withdrawn M.C.No.4 of 2000 filed by her on the file of the Judicial Magistrate "No. 1. Tirunelveli. wherein she had claimed maintenance for the children and for herself. Now both the parties have agreed to compromise the matter. They filed a petition u/s 320 Code of Criminal procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Nanguneri seeking permission to compound the offences, but the learned judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that it is not compoundable.
Heard both the sides. It is not in dispute that a case has been registered against the petitioners for commission of offence u/s 498A, I.P.C. It is also not in dispute that Section 320 Cr.P.C. gives details about the cases which may be compounded either with the permission of the Court or without permission of the court. Section 498A I.P.C. does not find a place. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that under the given circumstances of the case, considering the welfare and interest of both the parties, the Court may exercise its discretion to accord permission to compound the offences. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners cited an authority reported in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2111), herein the Apex Court have permitted compounding of an offence u/s 307 I.P.C. which does not come within the purview of Section 320 Cr.P.C. That was a case where a practising Lawyer was acquitted of a charge u/s 307 I.P.C. by the trial Court, and that on appeal, he was convicted by the High Court. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court went through'' the matter and observed as under:-
3.We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be proper that the trial Court shall permit them to compound the offence.
In a recent decision rendered in Crl. O.P. No. 17679 of 1999 dated 13.10.1999, S. Thangaraj, J. has accorded permission, for compounding of an offence u/s 498A I.P.C. The learned Judge has referred to AIR 1988 2111 (SC) and followed the cases reported in Thathapadi Venkatalakshmi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, ; Thathapadi Venkatalakshmi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, and State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopal Lal and Others, , wherein the Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts have accorded permission to compound the offence u/s 498A I.P.C.
Following the dictum of the Apex Court in the decision cited supra. I have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the first petitioner, he had divorced his wife. Her complaint is that he demanded dowry after divorce. He has also stated that an amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties regarding their future and also regarding the future of the children. When once the parties have adjusted the dispute. I feel, no purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue, because examination of the witnesses, etc. is only wasteful expenditure of time and money.
Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. recites as under:-
No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section.
The trial Magistrate has referred to the decision reported in Pyare Lal Gupta v. State (2000 Cri. LJ. 1919), wherein a-single Judge of the Delhi High Court has adverted die attention to Section 320(9) Cr.P.C . and held that the provisions of that Section is exhaustive in nature and it is couched in a mandatory form which lays down that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by Section 320 Cr.P.C.
In the light of the Supreme Courts decision in AIR 1988 2111 (SC) which would indicate that an area of discretion still lies with the Court, I think that the parties may be permitted to compound the offence. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to restore the Crl.M.P.No.1955 of 2000 on his file and accord permission. Accordingly, this Crl.M.P.No.3734 of 2000 is allowed.