RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Division Bench was called upon to quash the First Information Report No. 220/98, registered for an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 alleged to have been committed by the husband, on the ground that the husband and wife compromised the disputes. The Court was requested to accept the settlement and permit the parties to compound the offence.

(2.) It was submitted by learned counsel for the State that mere amicable settlement was no ground for compounding a non-compoundable offence. On the basis of the Full Bench decision in case of Gurcharan Singh v. State and Another, 2002 (1) A.D. (Delhi) 576, it was contended before the Division Bench that mere amicable settlement of a matrimonial dispute is no ground to allow the parties to compound the offence which is non compoundable. On the other hand, on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in case of Mahesh Chand and Others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2111, as also the case of Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. and Another, (1987) JT (SC) it was submitted by the petitioner that the amicable settlement particularly in case of husband and wife is a good ground to permit the parties to compound the offence and that the First Information Report deserves to be quashed. In view of the views expressed hereinabove, the Division Bench hearing the application referred the matter to the Larger Bench and that is how this matter is placed before this Larger Bench.

(3.) This bench is not required to discuss the matter in detail as in an identical case the Supreme Court has very recently pronounced a judgment on the question whether the parties can be permitted to compound a matrimonial offence which is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. In case of B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana, JT 2003 (3) SC 277, the Apex Court in Para 15 has held as under: