# Pramod & Anr v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 428
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-23
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 12174 of 2020
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-anr-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-46893
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

A.G.A., Sri Ashutosh Mishra

Matrimonial
dispute
-
Compromise
-
Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) ,
S.482 - Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) ,
S.498A, S.323, S.504 - Dowry Prohibition
Act (28 of 1961) , S.3, S.4 - Cruelty by
husband & dowry demand - compromise
during
pendency
of
appeal
against
conviction - Offence non-compoundable in
nature
-Matrimonial
dispute
between
parties - Held - High Court has inherent
powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash
criminal proceedings arising out of a
matrimonial disputes at any stage even
after conviction and during the pendency
of the criminal appeal (Para 44)

During the pendency of criminal appeal, after
settling their all the disputes, accused (husband)
and complainant (wife) arrived at a compromise
- Both living happily as husband & wife under
the same roof, with their son - If Court, in
exercise of its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.,
does not quash the criminal proceedings as well
as the order of conviction, then the happy life of
husband and wife (opposite party no.2) will be
ruined, especially the happy future life of their
son, whose golden future remains yet to
commence and who will suffer a lot -
Proceedings as well as conviction, liable to be
quashed. (Para 43)

Allowed

List of cases cited :
3 All. Pramod & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
429

## Text

_Characters 0–39,700 of 97,972. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39700 for what follows._

428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which may be adequately adjudicated upon
only by the trial court and while doing so
even the submissions made on points of
law can also be more appropriately gone
into by the trial court in this case. This
Court does not deem it proper, and
therefore cannot be persuaded to have a
pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A
threadbare discussion of various facts and
circumstances, as they emerge from the
allegations made against the accused, is
being purposely avoided by the Court for
the reason, lest the same might cause any
prejudice to either side during trial. But it
shall suffice to observe that the perusal of
the complaint, the summoning order and
also all other the material available on
record makes out a prima facie case against
the accused at this stage and this Court
does not find any justifiable ground to set
aside the impugned order refusing the
discharge of the accused. This court has not
been able to persuade itself to hold that no
case against the accused has been made out
or to hold that the charge is groundless.

22. The prayer for quashing or setting
aside the impugned orders is refused as I do
not see any illegality, impropriety and
incorrectness in the impugned orders or the
proceedings under challenge. There is
absolutely no abuse of court's process
perceptible in the same. The present matter
also does not fall in any of the categories
recognized by the Supreme Court which
might justify interference by this Court in
order to upset or quash them.

23. The present application lacks
merit and is accordingly rejected.
----------

(2021)03ILR A428
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2021
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 12174 of 2020

Pramod & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Raj Kumar Kesari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Ashutosh Mishra

Matrimonial
dispute
-
Compromise
-
Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) ,
S.482 - Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) ,
S.498A, S.323, S.504 - Dowry Prohibition
Act (28 of 1961) , S.3, S.4 - Cruelty by
husband & dowry demand - compromise
during
pendency
of
appeal
against
conviction - Offence non-compoundable in
nature
-Matrimonial
dispute
between
parties - Held - High Court has inherent
powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash
criminal proceedings arising out of a
matrimonial disputes at any stage even
after conviction and during the pendency
of the criminal appeal (Para 44)

During the pendency of criminal appeal, after
settling their all the disputes, accused (husband)
and complainant (wife) arrived at a compromise
- Both living happily as husband & wife under
the same roof, with their son - If Court, in
exercise of its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.,
does not quash the criminal proceedings as well
as the order of conviction, then the happy life of
husband and wife (opposite party no.2) will be
ruined, especially the happy future life of their
son, whose golden future remains yet to
commence and who will suffer a lot -
Proceedings as well as conviction, liable to be
quashed. (Para 43)

Allowed

List of cases cited :
3 All. Pramod & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
429
1. Kiran Tulsiram Ingle Vs Anupama P.
Gayakwad 2006 0 SC(Bom) 1151

2. Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. & anr 2016 0
SC (P & H) 243

3. Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC
303

4. Arun Singh & Ors Vs State of U.P. through its
Secretary & Anr 2020 (3) SCC 736

5. B.S. Joshi & ors Vs State of Haryana AIR
2003 SC 1386

6. Nikhil Merchant Vs CBI & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC
677

7. Manoj Sharma Vs State of U.P. & Ors (2008)
16 SCC 1

8. Narinder Singh & Ors Vs State of Punjab &
Ors (2014) 6 SCC 466

9. Sau. Maya Sanjay Khandare & Anr Vs. State
of Maha 2021 0 SC (Bom) 7

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Brief facts giving rise to the
questions invovled in this case, are that a
first information report was lodged by the
opposite party no. 2 against the applicant
no.1, Pramod and two others, which was
registered as Case Crime No. 93/2012,
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") as
also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act (fort short "D.P. Act"),
Police Thana, District Ghaziabad. After
investigation, charge sheet was submitted
against the applicant and two others coaccused namely Lalit and Rinku, under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, on the basis of
which, charges were framed under the
aforesaid sections. On the basis of the
statements of opposite party no. 2, learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 8, Ghaziabad vide order dated
02.12.2017 convicted the applicants under
Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and Section 4
Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and
order dated 02.12.2017, the applicants filed
Criminal Appeal No. 164/2017 (Pramod
and another vs. State of U.P., assailing the
judgment and order dated 02.12.2017, the
applicants have been released on bail in
criminal appeal.

3. During the pendency of the
criminal appeal, the parties have entered
into compromise and they decided to live
happily as husband and wife under one roof
with their minor son Shiva, aged about 18
years. Since arriving at a compromise
between the parties, they are residing under
one roof as husband and wife alongwith
their minor son, the applicants filed an
application before the Appellate Court,
alleging therein, that criminal proceeding
against them may be quashed, as the
continuation of criminal proceeding against
them would be abuse of process of the law.

4. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Kesari,
learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Pankaj
Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State of
U.P.

5. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
criminal proceeding in Case Crime No.
93/2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504
IPC
and under
Section
3/4
Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila
Thana,
District
Ghaziabad
and
consequential
conviction
order
dated
02.12.2017 passed by the Additional Chief
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.
8,
Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 10/2013,
"State vs. Pramod" as well as the
proceeding
in
Criminal
Appeal
No.
164/2017, "Pramod and another vs. State of
U.P.", pending in the Court of District and
Session Judge, Ghaziabad in terms of the
compromise
arrived
at
between
the
applicants and the opposite party no. 2.

6. On the matter being taken up,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
submitted that applicant no. 1 is the
husband and applicant no.2 is mother-inlaw of opposite party no. 2 and opposite
party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of
applicant no. 1. Without disputing the facts
of the case, counsel for the applicants
submits that during the pendency of appeal,
compromise has been arrived at between
the parties, therefore, criminal proceeding
against the applicants may be quashed in
the light of the compromise entered into
between the parties.

7. A joint affidavit has also been filed
by the learned counsel for the applicants
which is part of the record. On the basis of
joint affidavit, the Court on 07.09.2020
passed the following order :

"1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Kesari,
learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for
the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C.
application has been filed to quash the
entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 93 of
2012, under Section 498-A, 323, 504 IPC
and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Mahila Thana,
District-Ghaziabad and the consequential
conviction order dated 2.12.2017 passed by
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.8, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case
No. 10/2013 (State vs. Pramod and
another) as well as the proceeding in
Criminal Appeal No. 164/2017, (Pramod
and another vs. State of u.p.), pending in
the court of District and Session Judge,
Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel for the
applicants
submits
that
there
is
a
matrimonial dispute between the parties.
However, during pendency of appeal
against conviction the parties have entered
into compromise. It has further been
submitted that now, the husband and wife
are staying together. A compromise has
been entered between them which has been
reduced in writing, copy of compromise
deed has been annexed as Annexure no.4 to
this affidavit in support of bail application.

4. Learned counsel appearing for
the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute
the correctness of the submissions so
advanced by learned counsel for the
applicants. He will filing counter affidavit
in the registry today itself after serving
copy of the same to the learned A.G.A.,
wherein he has accepted that the parties
have amicably settled their dispute.

5. Accordingly, it is provided that
the parties shall appear before the court
below along with a certified copy of this
order on the next date fixed and be
permitted to file an application for
verification of the original compromise
document, which is annexed as Annexure
no.4 to this application. It is expected that
the trial court may fix a date for the
verification of the compromise entered into
between
the
parties
and
pass
an
appropriate order with respect to the
verification within a period of one month
from today. Upon due verification, the
court below may pass appropriate order in
that regard and send a report to this Court.

6. Put up on 2nd November, 2020
as fresh.
3 All. Pramod & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
431

7. Till then, no coercive measure
shall be taken against the applicants in the
aforesaid case. "

8. By the order dated 07.09.2020, it
was provided that the parties shall appear
before the Court below alongwith certified
copy of the order and were permitted to file
an application for verification of the
original
compromise
document.
After
which the trial Court was expected to fix a
date for verification of the compromise
entered into between the parties and pass an
appropriate order with respect to the same.

9. In compliance of the aforesaid
order dated 07.09.2020, a report has been
received from Additional Sessions Judge,
Ghaziabad wherein, it has been stated that
since
the
matter
relates
to
non
compoundable
offence,
therefore,
the
parties have been directed to appear before
this Court.

10. It appears that realizing the fact
that conviction order was passed and
during the pendency of appeal against
conviction, the parties have entered into
compromise, therefore, the parties have
been directed by the concerned court below
to be present before this Court.

11. At this juncture, the issue before
this Court, which is to be decided, is
whether this Court can quash the criminal
proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., after
conviction, and during the pendency of the
appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the offences under Section
498-A I.P.C. as also under Section 4 of the
Dowry
Prohibition
Act
is
not
compoundable offence, as is clear from the
perusal of the table referred to under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, this Hon'ble
Court having inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceeding in
cases of non compoundable offence.

13. Learned counsel for the applicants
has further submitted that though the
offence under Sections 498-A IPC is non
compoundable offence, but, in the present
case, when the parties have entered into
compromise and both are living as husband
and wife under one roof alongwith their
minor
son,
continuation
of
criminal
proceeding against them may be quashed as
the continuous of criminal proceeding
against them would be abuse of process of
the law and this Court will vitiate the
purpose
of
compromise
and
cordial
relationship between the husband and wife.

14. Learned counsel for the applicants
has lastly submitted that the Bombay High
Court as well as Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court in the cases of Kiran
Tulsiram
Ingle
vs.
Anupama
P.
Gayakwad reported in 2006 0 Supreme
(Bom) 1151 and Vinay Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. and another; reported in 2016 0
Supreme (P & H) 243, even after
conviction, Hon'ble Courts have been
pleased to quash the criminal proceeding
during the pendency of the appeal,
exercising the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C.

15. To further bolster the aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel for the
applicants has placed reliance upon the
following judgments the Punjab and
Haryana High Court, Bombay High Court
and the Apex Court:

i. Vinay Kumar (Supra);

ii.
Kiran
Tulsiram
Ingle
(Supra);
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

iii. Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.

16. In view of aforesaid submissions,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
submitted that the proceedings of the above
mentioned criminal case are liable to be
quashed by this Court as also the
consequences thereof, i.e., conviction of the
applicants is also liable to be set aside.

17. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2, on
instruction received, states that opposite
party no.2 has no objection, if the
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid
case are quashed as well as the judgment
and order of the conviction passed against
the applicants, is set aside. He does not
dispute the correctness of the submission
advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicants or the correctness of the
documents relied upon by him.

18. However, on the other hand, Mr.
Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the
State has opposed the prayer made by the
learned counsel for the applicants by
contending that when the appeal against the
conviction of the applicants is pending,
wherein, they have been enlarged on bail
and they have been convicted for offences
under Sections 323, 498-A I.P.C. as also
under Section 4 D.P. Act, which are noncompoundable, this Court, in exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
cannot
quash
the
aforesaid
criminal
proceedings and the judgment and order of
the
conviction
passed
against
the
applicants. In support his case, the learned
A.G.A. has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Arun Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P.
through its Secretary & Another reported
in 2020 (3) SCC 736.

19. On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid submissions, learned A.G.A.
states that the present application is liable
to be rejected.

20. This Court has considered the
rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and gone through the
records of the present application.

21. The question, as to whether non
compoundable offences should be quashed
by this Court or not, has come up for
consideration before the Apex court, time
and again, and there is no need to go into
the same at great length.

22. The issues before this Court are
whether (i) this Court can convert noncompoundable offences into compoundable
one (Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4
D.P. Act in the facts of the present case),
(ii)
quash
the
aforesaid
criminal
proceedings of the case and lastly (iii) set
aside the judgment and order of conviction
passed
against
the
applicants
while
exercising its inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to arrive at the ends of justice
and in view of compromised arrived at
between the parties, who are none other
than the husband, wife and in-law's, when
there is no equally efficacious course is
open for the parties to get the relief prayed
for herein.

23. There are authoritative judicial
precedents where the Apex Court has
approved the quashing of the proceedings
when it found that they emanated from
mutual marital discord, even though the
proceedings included some offences, which
were not compoundable (Section 498-A
I.P.C. and Section 4 D.P. Act in the facts of
the present case). The dockets of the
pending cases are already bursting on there
3 All. Pramod & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
433
seams. If this court can clearly see that the
continuation of some criminal proceeding
in the lower court is going to result into
nothing fruitful and the same will be a
sheer wastage of public time and money
then it shall not be loath to put an end to
that fruitless exercise. In the present case,
the dispute is matrimonial in nature, i.e.,
between the husband and wife in which the
husband and mother-in-law of the wife
have been convicted by the court below and
they filed an appeal against the order of
conviction. In the appeal, they have been
enlarged on bail and for happy and peaceful
life of the husband and wife as also the life
of their son, they have settled their disputes
during the pendency of the appeal and both
husband and wife arrived at a compromise.
After compromise, they are living together
happily along with their son. This Court,
therefore,
deems
it
appropriate
and
expedient both to quash the entire criminal
proceedings initiated by opposite party no.2
during the pendency of appeal filed against
the judmgent and order of conviction, as
they will result into a fruitless exercise in
vain in the peaceful life of husband and
wife as also their son.

24. But, as the advisability to exercise
the powers of this Court to quash the non
compoundable offences has been questioned,
thus, it may be useful to give a brief reference
to the law in this regard. Therefore, firstly it
would be worth while to reproduce the
relevant paragraphs of the judgments relied
upon by the learned counsel the applicant and
the learned A.G.A. for the State to examine
the applicability of the aforesaid judgments in
the facts and circumstances of the present
case. Paragraph nos. 11 to 14 of the case of
Vinay Kumar (Supra) reads as follows:

"11. This Court in the case of
Sube Singh and another Versus State of
Haryana and another 2013(4) RCR
(Criminal)
102
has
considered
the
compounding of offences at the appellate
stage and ANJAL GUPTA 2016.02.12
17:32 I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document high court
chandigarh has observed that even when
appeal against the conviction is pending
before the Sessions Court and parties
entered into a compromise, the High Court
is vested unparallel power under Section
482 Cr.PC to quash criminal proceedings
at any stage so as to secure the ends of
justice and has observed as under:-

"15. The refusal to invoke power
under Section 320 CrPC, however, does
not debar the High Court from resorting to
its inherent power under Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code and pass an
appropriate order so as to secure the ends
of justice.

16.
As
regards
the
doubt
expressed by the learned Single Judge
whether the inherent power under Section
482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the
criminal proceedings on the basis of
compromise entered into between the
parties can be invoked even if the accused
has been held guilty and convicted by the
trial Court, we find that in Dr. Arvind
Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Anr., 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 910 :
(2008)5
SCC
794,
the
unfortunate
matrimonial dispute was settled after the
appellant (husband) had been convicted
under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and
his appeal was pending before the first
appellate court. The Apex Court quashed
the criminal proceedings keeping in view
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case and in the interest of justice observing
that "continuation of criminal proceedings
would be an abuse of the process of law"
and also by invoking its power under
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Article 142 of the Constitution. Since the
High Court does not possess any power
akin to the one under Article 142 of the
Constitution, the cited decision cannot be
construed to have vested the High Court
with such like unparallel power.

17. The magnitude of inherent
jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court
under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code
with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to
secure the ends of justice, however, is wide
enough to include its power to quash the
proceedings in relation to not only the non-
compoundable offences notwithstanding the
bar under Section 320 Criminal Procedure
Code but such a power, in our considered
view, is exercisable at any stage save that
there is no express bar and invoking of such
power is fully justified on facts and
circumstances of the case.

18. xxx xxx

19. xxx xxx

20. xxx xxx

21. In the light of these peculiar
facts and circumstances where not only
the parties but their close relatives
(including daughter and son-in-law of
respondent No.2) have also supported the
amicable settlement, we are of the
considered view that the negation of the
compromise would disharmonize the
relationship and cause a permanent rift
amongst the family members who are
living together as a joint family. Nonacceptance of the compromise would also
lead to denial of complete justice which is
the very essence of our justice delivery
system. Since there is no statutory
embargo against invoking of power under
Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code
after conviction of an accused by the trial
Court and during pendency of appeal
against such conviction, it appears to be
a fit case to invoke the inherent
jurisdiction
and
strike
down
the
proceedings
subject
to
certain
safeguards.

22. Consequently and for the
reasons afore-stated, we allow this petition
and set aside the judgement and order
dated 16.03.2009 passed in Criminal Case
No. 425-1 of 2000 of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, on the basis of
compromise dated 08.08.2011 arrived at
between
them
and
their
step-mother
respondent No.2 (Smt. Reshma Devi) w/o
late Rajmal qua the petitioners only. As a
necessary corollary, the criminal complaint
filed by respondent No.2 is dismissed qua
the petitioners on the basis of above-stated
compromise.
Resultantly,
the
appeal
preferred by the petitioners against the
above- mentioned order dated 16.03.2009
would be rendered infructuous and shall be
so declared by the first Appellate Court at
Hisar."

12. Similarly, in the case of
Baghel Singh Versus State of Punjab
2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 578, whereby the
accused was convicted under Section 326
IPC and was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years, the
parties entered into compromise during the
pendency of the appeal. This Court while
relying upon the judgment of Lal Chand
Versus State of Haryana, 2009 (5) RCR
(Criminal) 838 and Chhota Singh Versus
State of Punjab 1997(2) RCR (Criminal)
392 allowed the compounding of offence in
respect of offence under Section 326 IPC at
the appellate stage with the observation
that it will be a starting point in
maintaining peace between the parties,
such offence can be compounded.

13. Accordingly, while relying
upon the aforesaid judgments and coupled
with the fact that the parties have entered
into a compromise and learned Sessions
Judge, Sangrur has submitted his report in
support of genuineness of the compromise,
3 All. Pramod & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
435
the present petition is allowed and FIR
No.17, dated 21.05.2010, under Sections
304-A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC,
registered at Police Station Cheema,
District-Sunam,
and
all
subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, qua the
accused-petitioner, are quashed, on the
basis of compromise and affidavits dated
07.08.2012(Annexures P-2 to P-4).

14. Consequently, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated
12.11.2014 passed by the trial Court, are
set aside. The appeal preferred by the
accused-petitioner against the aforesaid
judgment and order is rendered infructuous
and shall be declared so by the first
Appellate Court."

Paragraph
nos.
1,9,10,11,12,13,14
and
15
of
Kiran
Tulshiram Ingle (Supra) read as follows:

"1. Heard advocates for the
petitioner and Respondent No. 1. Petitioner
is the husband and Respondent No. 1 is the
wife. A case was instituted against the
petitioner under Section 498Aof the Indian
Penal Code. He came to be convicted by
the trial Court. The matter went in appeal.
Before the appellate Court, the matter was
settled between the parties. The petitioner
and respondent No. 1 obtained divorce by
mutvial consent. Respondent No. 1 agreed
not to press for the petitioners conviction.
The
appellate
Court
maintained
the
conviction of the petitioner and gave him
benefit of provisions of Probation of
Offenders' Act.

9.
In
this
background,
the
advocate for the petitioner contended that
the criminal case should have been
quashed by the Sessions Judge, but
admittedly, the Sessions Judge had no
power to do so, nor any power to
compound the offence and, therefore, he
has moved this Court. He prayed that
either the criminal case be quashed or
offence under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code be allowed to be compounded.

10. Justice Khanwilkar in the
Criminal Revision, arising out of the
conviction of petitioner, as referred to
above, did not agree with the view of the
single Judge taken in the case of State of
Maharashtra v. Madhu Bhisham Bhatia
and Ors. reported in 2004 All MR (Crl)
1849 : 2004 Cri LJ 5072. According to
Justice Khanwilkar, the single Judge
misread the judgment of the Apex Court In
B.S. Joshi's Case and, therefore, he thought
it fit to refer the Issue to the Division
Bench. He framed following two Issues:

(1) The decision of the Apex
Court, in B.S. Joshi's case is not an
authority to hold that offence underSection
498A of the Indian Penal Code is a
compoundable offence, which can be
compounded with the permission of the
Court.

(2) Whether it is open for the
High Court to quash the criminal action in
exercise of Inherent powers even in a case
which has ended with an order of
conviction after trial.

11. In our opinion, the main issue
before the Supreme Court was, whether to
allow the matrimonial disputes to continue
indefinitely causing hardship to both the
parties; or whether in case parties come to
a settlement, that settlement should be
given approval and sanctity. In para 2 of
B.S. Joshi's Case AIR 2003 SC 1386 the
Supreme Court observed as under:

The matrimonial disputes of the
kind in the present case have been on
considerable increase in recent times
resulting in filing of complaints by the wife
under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not only
against the husband but his other family
members also. When such matters are
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin
the matrimonial home or mutual separation
of husband and wife and also mutual
settlement of other pending disputes as a
result whereof both sides approach the
High Court and jointly pray for quashing of
the criminal proceedings of the First
Information Report or complaint filed by
the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC
can the prayer be declined on the ground
that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code
and, therefore, it is not permissible for the
Court to quash the criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint.

Thereafter the Supreme Court
considered 7 Judgments upon which the
parties relied and then, after considering
its own Judgment in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad, and found that the observations
made in that Judgment were apt and which
were reproduced, are as under:

It was said that there has been an
outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent
times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the
main purpose of which is to enable the
young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully.
But
little
matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly extend which often
assume serious proportions resulting in
commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with
the result that those who could have
counselled
and
brought
about
reapproachment are rendered helpless on
their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other
reasons which need not be mentioned here
for not encouraging matrimonial litigation
so that the parties may ponder over their
defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a Court of law where it
takes years and years to conclude and in
that process the parties lose their "young"
days in chasing their "cases" in different
Courts.

Then para 14 the Supreme Court
observed as:

The hyper-technical view would
be counter productive and would act
against interests of women and against the
object for which this provision was added.
There is every likelihood that non-exercise
of inherent power to quash the proceedings
to meet the ends of justice would prevent
women from settling earlier. That is not the
object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal
Code.

These
observations
of
the
Supreme Court are very broad. In para 2,
reproduced above by us, the Issue before
the Supreme Court was, for quashing of
criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.

12. The single Judge felt that the
powers of quashing cannot be exercised if
the criminal proceedings have resulted in
conviction, as in the present case. We are
not in agreement with these observations. If
the prime object of the Judgment of
Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi's case is to
allow the parties to settle their matrimonial
disputes either way, then conviction, in our
opinion, cannot and should not come in the
way. It is a fact on record that the trial
Court convicted the accused. The parties
thereafter mutually obtained divorce. This
fact was taken into consideration by the
learned Sessions Judge. But he expressed
his inability to compound the offence under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
because he had no powers to do so. He
further granted benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act to the petitioner.

13. Therefore, it is clear that
firstly in this case the parties have
compromised even after conviction and, the
object of compromise to live happily,
peacefully though separately after divorce.
The Sessions Court has taken cognizance of
3 All. Pramod & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
437
this compromise and has reduced the
conviction and altered it to a bond under
the Probation of Offenders Act. Secondly,
conviction by the first Court is not end of
the matter and appeal therefrom is
continuation of proceeding and if a
revision is filed, in case conviction is
maintained, altered, reduced, then the High
Court in revision does get power to pass
effective orders in consonance with the
judgment of the Supreme Court. Conviction
does not attain finality if the appeal is filed
and, If the revision is filed against
conviction by appellate Court, there also
all issues become opened before the High
Court.

14. Since the Supreme Court had
approached this issue with a broader
perspective and the Issue was whether it is
permissible to quash criminal proceedings
(Stress Added, or complaint or FIR and in
our opinion, even the criminal proceedings
can be quashed irrespective of whether
there is conviction or otherwise. We,
therefore, answer both the Issues as under:

Ans. to Issue No. 1 :- The
decision of the Supreme Court gives
powers to the High Court to permit
compounding of matrimonial offences and
the High Court has powers to quash the
criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.

Ans. to Issue No. 2 : Even in case
of conviction, inherent powers can be
exercised and criminal proceedings can be
quashed.

15. In view of the aforesaid
decision of the Supreme Court, we hold
that the High Court, by exercising inherent
powers, can quash criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the
Code does not limit or affect the powers of
the High Court under Section 482 of the
Criminal procedure Code. In view of this
clear judgment of the Supreme Court we
pass the following order:-

ORDER:

Reference
stands
answered
accordingly.

The criminal proceedings against
the petitioner so also his conviction by both
the Courts below is hereby quashed in view
of the mutual understanding, divorce and
compromise between the husband and wife.

All the matters, therefore, stand
disposed of accordingly."

Paragraph nos. 61 and 62 of the
case of Gian Singh (Supra) read as
follows:

"61. The position that emerges from
the above discussion can be summarised thus:
the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct
and different from the power given to a criminal
court for compounding the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of
wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it
has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the
ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or
F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and
victim have settled their dispute would depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case and
no category can be prescribed. However,
before exercise of such power, the High Court
must have due regard to the nature and gravity
of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even
though the victim or victim's family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such offences
are not private in nature and have serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and offender in relation to
the offences under special statutes like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
committed by public servants while working in
that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis
for quashing criminal proceedings involving
such offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil
flavour stand on different footing for the
purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically private
or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category
of cases, High Court may quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
and continuation of criminal case would put
accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the
victim. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary
to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and wrongdoer
and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end
and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within
its
jurisdiction
to
quash
the
criminal
proceeding.

62. In view of the above, it
cannot be said that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil
Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not
correctly
decided.
We
answer
the
reference accordingly. Let these matters
be now listed before the concerned
Bench(es)."
 (Emphasis added)

25. Apart from the above judgments
relied upon by learned counsel for the
applicants, this Court is also required to
notice some judgments of the Apex Court,
wherein the Apex Court has held that if the
parties have settled their disputes and
arrived at a compromise for their safe and
peaceful life, the High Court, in exercise of
its inherent power, can quash the criminal
proceedings
initiated
under
the
compoundable
and
non-compoundable
sections if the same relate to offences
arising
from
commercial,
financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry etc., or family
disputes, as it would be unfair or contrary
to interest of justice to continue with
criminal proceeding or continuation of
criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law and to secure ends
of justice.

26. The Apex Court in the case of
B.S. Joshi & Others VS. State of
Haryana & Another reported in (2003) 4
SCC 675 has opined that while exercising
power of quashing under Section 482
Cr.P.C., it is for the High Court to take into
consideration any special features which
appear in a particular case to consider
whether it is expedient and in the interest of
justice to permit a prosecution to continue.
Where, in the opinion of the Court chances
of an ultimate conviction is bleak and
therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing a criminal prosecution
to continue, the Court may, while taking
into consideration the special facts of a
case, also quash the proceedings. The
special features in
such matrimonial
matters are evident. It becomes the duty of
the Court to encourage genuine settlements
of matrimonial disputes. Paragraph nos. 2,
3 All. Pramod & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
439
13 to 15 of the said judgment, which are
relevant, read as follows:

"2.The question that falls for
determination in the instant case is about
the ambit of the inherent powers of the
High Courts under Section 482, Code of
Criminal Procedure (Code) read with
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India to quash criminal proceedings. The
scope and ambit of power under Section
482 has been examined by this Court in
catena of earlier decisions but in the
present case that is required to be
considered in relation to matrimonial
disputes. The matrimonial disputes of the
kind in the present case have been on
considerable increase in recent times
resulting in filing of complaints by the wife
under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not only
against the husband but his other family
members also. When such matters are
resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin
the matrimonial home or mutual separation
of husband and wife and also mutual
settlement of other pending disputes as a
result whereof both sides approach the
High Court and jointly pray for quashing of
the criminal proceedings or the First
Information Report or complaint filed by
the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC,
can the prayer be declined on the ground
that
since
the
offences
are
noncompoundable under Section 320 of the
Code and, therefore, it is not permissible
for the Court to quash the criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint.

...

13. The observations made by this
Court, though in a slightly different
context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad &
Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for
determining the approach required to be
kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the
courts, it was said that there has been an
outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent
times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the
main purpose of which is to enable the
young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully.
But
little
matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in
commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with
the result that those who could have
counselled
and
brought
about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on
their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case.