SALIHA K.N. Vs. ABDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is nothing but a last ditch effort of the de facto complainant to save her matrimonial tie. The circumstances beckon a brief narration of the facts. The revision petitioner/the de facto complainant is manned to the son of the 1st respondent/1st accused. Alleging malefic manners on the part of the father-in-law viz.; the first respondent herein the revision petitioner lodged a complaint against him alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, Crime No. 478/11 was registered in Payyoli Police Station containing damnation under Sections 324 and 308 of IPC. During the course of its investigation itself interference by their kinsmen brought about a compromise between the parties. Soon, the petitioner herein approached this Court by filing Criminal MC No. 5533/2011 for quashing the First Information Report. Essentially, the contention was that since the disputes were settled between the parties and that was duly intimated to the police further investigation based on the FIR would only be a futile exercise and no useful purpose could be served by allowing the FIR to remain. An affidavit to that effect was also filed in the said Criminal MC. Having found that investigation is the province of the police and at that stage, this Court could not take cognizance of such an affidavit and to quash the further proceedings which are pending investigation the said case was disposed of as per Annexure-I order with a direction to the investigating officer to complete the investigation and to file a final report within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. The petitioner was also directed to furnish a copy of the order to the investigating officer. The investigating officer went on with the investigation and laid Annexure-II final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli charge-sheeting the 1st respondent herein for commission of offences under Sections 324 and 308 IPC. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate considered the final report and the materials sent along with and took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 308 IPC and commenced committal proceedings as CP No. 14 of 2012. During its course the learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant to the first respondent/first accused. This revision petition has been filed in the above circumstances with the prayer to call for the records and to set aside the order in CP No. 14/2012 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 324 and 308 by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The facts expatiated above would reveal that the de facto complainant herself now, seeks for an abrupt termination of the proceedings after setting the law in motion all by herself. Now, Criminal MA No. 4178 of 2012 has been filed by the revision petitioner under Section 482 CrPC with the prayer to stay all further proceedings in CP No. 14/2012 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Perambra. The affidavit accompanying the said petition succinctly explains all the developments and circumstances since the lodging of the complaint. As noticed hereinbefore, the revision petitioner had earlier filed an affidavit in Crl. MC No. 3388/2011 regarding the settlement of the dispute between the parties. All the attending circumstances are narrated in detail by the petitioner to contend that non-interference by this Court at this stage, would ultimately result in miscarriage of justice. It is evident that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 324 & 308 Indian Penal Code against the 1st accused. The said offences are non-compoundable in terms of the provisions under Section 320 CrPC. Therefore, there is no question of granting permission to compound such non compoundable offences as any such order would violate the statutory provision. The question therefore, is whether the proceedings could be terminated, in the circumstances, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, CrPC.

(3.) Now, I may consider the question regarding the scope of exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in circumstances like the one on hand. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003 AIR(SC) 1386assumes relevance in this context. In that case the husband was one of the appellants and the wife was the second respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 21/07/1999. They were living separately since, 15/07/2000 and the FIR was registered at wife's instance on 02/01/2002 under Sections 498A, 323 and 406, IPC. During pendency of the criminal case the dispute between the husband and wife and their family members were settled. Then, the wife filed an affidavit stating that her dispute with the husband and the other members of his family had been finally settled and she and her husband had agreed for mutual divorce. Thereupon both the parties approached the High Court and jointly sought for quashing the criminal proceedings launched against the husband and his family members based on the aforesaid FIR. The High Court dismissed the petition holding the view that as offences under Sections 498A and 406, IPC being non-compoundable the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code could not be invoked to by-pass Section 320 CrPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers could quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320, CrPC would not and could not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said decision read thus: