PREM SHANKER PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr. P.C.'), the applicants (1) Prem Shankar Pandey, (2) Sanjay Pandey, (3) Guddan, (4) Rajal, (5) Sonu and (6) Smt. Siyarani have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7144 of 2005, State v. Prem Shankar Pandey and others arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2001, under Sections 498A and 323, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act P.S. Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-1, Kanpur Nagar.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. in brief, are that marriage of applicant No. 1 Prem Shankar Pandey and opposite party No. 2 Smt. Rubey Pandey took place on 28th June, 1999, but subsequently some misunderstanding and disputes were developed between the couple, as a result of which Smt. Rubey Pandey lodged an F.I.R. on 18.6.2001 at P. S. Mahrajpur (Kanpur Nagar), where a case under Sections 498A and 323, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act was registered at Crime No. 136 of 2001 against the applicants. After investigation, final report was submitted by the police. Against that final report, Smt. Rubey Pandey filed protest petition. A.C.M.M. Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 11.1.2005 summoned the accused persons to face the trial under Sections 498A and 323, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act after rejecting the final report. On the basis of that summoning order, Crl. Case No. 7144 of 2005 was registered against the applicants. During pendency of that case, the parties settled their dispute amicably in the year 2006 and in pursuance of that settlement, the applicant Prem Shankar Pandey and Smt. Rubey Pandey began to live together. As a result of the settlement entered into between the parties, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceeding of aforesaid criminal case.

(3.) THE learned A.G.A. on the other hand, contended that the offences punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act are not compoundable and since there is specific bar under Section 320 (9), Cr. P.C. to compound the offences, which are not compoundable under Section 320 (1) and (2), Cr. P.C., hence, this Court cannot quash the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case.