ANIL KUMAR PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') has been filed by the petitioner who is accused in G. R. Case No. 42 of 1996 in the Court of S.D.J.M. Baripada. Application filed by the petitioner with his wife (informant)/opposite party No. 2) to compound the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C., was turned down by learned S.D.J.M. on May 9, 2000 on the ground that such offence is not compoundable. Petitioner thus prays to quash the proceeding i.e., G.R. Case No. 42 of 1996 on the ground that in view of the compromise between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 continuance of, the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) Admittedly, petitioner is the husband and opposite party No. 2 (informant in the G. R. Case) is his wife and State of Orissa i.e. opposite party No. 1 is the prosecutor. On the basis of the allegation made by opposite party No. 2 regarding demand of dowry and ill-treatment and torture on that account not only the aforesaid case was registered but also after investigation charge-sheet was filed and that is how the petitioner has been called upon to answer to the charge for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(3.) Contention of the petitioner is that when the relationship between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 as husband and wife has resumed and returned to normalcy continuance of the said criminal proceeding is not only detrimental to their peaceful conjugal life but also against the interest of justice. He argued that no doubt such offence has not been made compoudable as per the provision in sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 320 of the Code, but notwithstanding that High Court has ample power to grant substantial justice by invoking the inherent power and that is why the criminal proceeding i.e., G. R. Case No. 42 of 1996 be quashed by invoking the provision in Sec. 482 of the Code. In support of that argument, petitioner places reliance on the case of Subash Chandra Mishra v. Republic of India, (2000) 1 OLR 1 : (2001 Cri LJ 876).