Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2887 (ALL)

MAMTA v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-12-13

SUNIL HALI

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1499 of 2012, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Lar, District Deoria as well as the impugned orders dated 20.6.2012 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (JD), Court No. 20, Deoria whereby the application filed by the applicant for quashing of the cognisance order dated 6.4.2012 taken against the opposite party No. 2 on the ground of compromise entered into between the applicant and opposite party No. 2 has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. A case vide Case Crime No. 65 of 2012, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act was registered by the police of P.S. Lar, District Deoria. It appears that some compromise had been arrived at between the parties. An application was filed before the Trial Court by the present applicant, who is informant of the case, for allowing the parties to enter into compromise and order its compounding by the Trial Court. The said application was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that it does not have the power to compound the offence which is subject-matter of trial before the Court. A revision was preferred against the said order before the revisional Court who also vide its order dated 20.6.2012 rejected the prayer of the applicant. It is against this order present application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an application for seeking compromise supported by an affidavit was filed by the present applicant who is also informant before the Trial Court. In paragraph No. 3 of the said affidavit, it is stated that she has entered into compromise and dispute between the parties has been settled. She prayed that cognizance taken by the Court below in this behalf be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. This application has been filed by the informant seeking quashing of the proceedings before the Trial Court. The question that arise for consideration is as to whether the Court can on application filed by informant seeking withdrawal of the case be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. This application has been filed by the informant seeking quashing of the proceedings before the Trial Court. The question that arise for consideration is as to whether the Court can on application filed by informant seeking withdrawal of the case be allowed. In order to appreciate this controversy, it is important to examine the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The language of Section 482 Cr.P.C. only reiterates the inherent powers already enjoyed by the Court. The only limitation provided is that such power should not be exercised if there is specific provision under the Code in this behalf. Application has been filed by the informant that she has entered into compromise with the accused party and does not want to pursue with the trial where as the complainant by in itself comes forward seeking withdrawal of the case that in itself takes off the foundation of the case and continuance with such proceedings would be futile exercise. 5. In my opinion, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time that the party could not be allowed to suffer the consequence of protracted trial if it is possible to culminate the proceedings into compromise. Therefore, I am of the view that the present applicant has locus to seeking withdrawal of the criminal case initiated at her best. 6. Second aspect of the matter as to whether the Trial Court was correct in its approach rejecting the application. There is no dispute that the power of the Trial Court to compound the offence could be exercise only in respect of those offences which are compoundable. The Courts do not have the power to compound the offence which is not permissible by the Court. However, this restriction does not apply to this Court in exercising its inherent power in this behalf. The Courts do not have the power to compound the offence which is not permissible by the Court. However, this restriction does not apply to this Court in exercising its inherent power in this behalf. This view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika and another, 2012 (1) JIC 376 (SC), wherein the following observation has been made by the Hon’ble Apex Court which is as under : “An offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC is in terms of Section 320(2) of the Code compoundable at the instance of the woman against whom the offence is committed. To that extent, therefore, there is no difficulty in either quashing the proceedings or compounding the offence under Section 354, of which the appellants are accused, having regard to the fact that the alleged victim of the offence has settled the matter with the alleged assailants. An offence punishable under Section 394 IPC is not, however, compoundable with or without the permission of the Court concerned. The question is whether the High Court could and ought to have exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the prosecution under the said provision in the light of the compromise that the parties have arrived at. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eye-witnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 Cr.P.C. could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the Courts below.” The import of the judgment clearly makes visible that continuance of the proceedings would be intended to empty formality. Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, where the informant itself says that she has entered into compromise that by in itself is indication that continuance of such proceedings would be unnecessary. Even while scanning through the allegations levelled against the accused under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act is not made out. In view of above, application is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1499 of 2012, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Lar, District Deoria are hereby quashed. ——————