JOGINDER RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners stand convicted for offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. The petitioners accordingly impugned their conviction and sentence awarded to them by filing appeal before Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioners and the complainant have compromised and a deed prepared in this regard is annexed as Annexure P-4. The offence under Section 323 IPC is compoundable, but the offence under Section 498-A IPC is non-compoundable. The petitioners have now invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of this FIR on the basis of this compromise.

(2.) THE reason for filing this petition is that offence under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable, the Appellate Court cannot acquit them on the basis of this compromise. It is to be seen in this background if the quashing of the FIR can be ordered in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a compromise, when appeal against conviction is pending before the first Appellate Court. This issue in regard to exercise of jurisdiction for quashing of FIR, when appeal is pending before the lower Appellate Court came up for consideration before this Court and is a subject matter of adjudication in an order passed in Criminal Misc.No. 21880-M of 2008.

(3.) IT is averred in the petition that such like petition for compounding of the offences could not be filed before the lower Appellate Court as the offence under Section 498-A IPC, for which the petitioners have been convicted, is non-compoundable under the Scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. In Criminal Misc. 21880-M of 2008, this court considered the issue whether quashing petition can be maintained before this court when appeal against the conviction for offences is pending before the first Appellate Court. It is held as under :- What should be the approach ? The appeal against the conviction of petitioner No. 1 and against acquittal of petitioners No. 2 to 5 are pending before the first appellate Court. Would it be legally permissible to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings? It may lead to a some unhealthy precedent being set which would also not sound legally in order. So far, the petitioners have made only an oral prayer before the first appellate Court, which has been orally declined. Generally, before approaching this Court for relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. an approach to the Court before which the proceedings are pending with a prayer for dismissal of the proceedings should ordinarily constitute a condition precedent for entertaining an application under this Section because the grievance in regard to abuse of process must ordinarily be made before the Court where the abuse is taking place. I am accordingly of the view that the petitioners must, at the first instance, file an application before the first Appellate Court for bringing on record the compromise reached between the parties, emphasizing the fact that husband and wife are now living together. The Appellate Court has ample power to permit additional evidence at the appellate stage in exercise of powers under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and the Court would be well advised to exercise such power to take these facts and compromise on record........"