Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 496 (PNJ)

Kamlesh Rana v. State Of Punjab

2002-05-03

NIRMAL SINGH

body2002
Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This order will dispose of Crl.M. No. 28300-M of 1998 and Crl. M. No. 15508-M of 1999 as both the cases are arising out of one FIR i.e. FIR No. 43 dated 12.3.1998 under Sections 406, 498-A, 120B IPC registered at police station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana. AND A petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Shri Rajiv Trikha made a request that Piyush Chander Sharma may be allowed to be impleaded as petitioner in Crl.M. No 28300-M of 1998. The respondents have no objection. Piyush Chander Sharma is allowed to be impleaded as petitioner in Crl.M. No. 28300-M of 1998. 3. The FIR against the petitioner was registered under Sections 406, 498A, 120-B on the statement of Partibha Goyal complainant. The petitioners have sought quashing on the ground that with the intervention of the respectables and in order to bury their dispute, the parties have settled their dispute amicably. 4. The learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the parties have settled their dispute, therefore, the parties may be allowed to compound the offence as the offences under Section 406, 498-A IPC are non-compoundable. They have also submitted that the parties have also filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce mutually and the divorce may also be allowed to the parties. 5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The offence under Sections 406, 498-A IPC are non-compoundable but taking into consideration the circumstances of each case, the High Court exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can allow the compounding of the offence in non-compoundable offences. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489, their Lordship has held as under :- "In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Courts inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The saving of the High Courts inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its objects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction." 7. In Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(3) RCR 332, the accused were acquitted by the trial Court and were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the Apex Court allowed the parties to compound the offence. 8. In Saud and another v. State of Haryana, 1988(1) CCC 388, this Court allowed the compounding of the offence though the offence was not compoundable. Reliance can also be placed upon Y. Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1987(2) SC 361, Kailash and others v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) RCR 198, Chiranji Lal v. State of U.P., 1982(3) SCC 371, Bharat Singh v. State of M.P. and others, 1990 Suppl. SCC 62. 9. Partibha Goyal-complainant is present in the Court. She has been identified by Mrs. Aarti Gupta, Advocate. She made a statement that she had effected compromise with Piyush and others and has settled the dispute mutually with the intervention of the respectable and friends. She further made a statement that she has no objection if the FIR registered against the petitioners is quashed. She has further made a statement that due to the different attitude of temperament and attitude of life, she could not live with Piyush Chander Sharma. The respectable and friends had tried their best to reconcile the matter. She further made a statement that she has no objection if the FIR registered against the petitioners is quashed. She has further made a statement that due to the different attitude of temperament and attitude of life, she could not live with Piyush Chander Sharma. The respectable and friends had tried their best to reconcile the matter. She herself has also tried her best to reconcile the matter with Piyush Chander Sharma but she could not. Therefore, she has agreed to take divorce from Piyush Chander Sharma. She has further made statement that she has also filed a petition for divorce in the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana and they are living separate since 6.4.1997. 10. Petitioner-Piyush Chander Sharma is also present in the Court. He had made a statement that the statement of Partibha Goyal is correct and he is also ready to take divorce with Partibha Goyal and he has no objection if the petition for divorce is accepted. 11. Taking into consideration that the complainant has settled the dispute amicably with Piyush Chander Sharma and others, therefore it will be in the interest of the parties and in the larger interest of the society that the parties may be allowed to compound the offence. Even otherwise if the parties are not allowed to compound the offence, complainant is not likely to support the case of the prosecution. It will be a sheer wastage of time of the Court as well as of the parties, therefore, FIR No. No. 43 dated 12.3.1998 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 120-B IPC is quashed. Partibha Goyal-complainant has also filed a petition in the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting divorce. In the said petition, the parties have filed an application for converting the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act into 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. This Court vide order dated 24.1.2002 requisitioned the file pending in the Court of Additional District Judge Ludhiana. The said file has been taken on the Board of this Court. The Registry is directed to give number to the said petition. The parties have also placed on record compromise Annexure P-7 and also an application Annexure P-8 converting the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act into 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said file has been taken on the Board of this Court. The Registry is directed to give number to the said petition. The parties have also placed on record compromise Annexure P-7 and also an application Annexure P-8 converting the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act into 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The application is allowed as prayed for and the petition pending under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is converted into 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. So, taking into consideration the statement of the parties as well as Compromised Annexure P-7, I am fully satisfied that the parties can not live together, therefore, the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is accepted. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and a decree by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is passed. Officer is directed to prepare a decree of divorce. Copy of this order be sent to the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana.