RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dropping or quashing the proceedings under Sections 498A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jetaran in Regular Case No. 298/93. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the case good sense prevailed in the minds of the parties and during the course of trial, they arrived at an amicable settlement and, therefore, both the parties do not desire that the prosecution should continue. As the offences are not compoundable the trial Court has refused to compound them. The learned Counsel has relied on several Single Bench decisions of this Court. In some of these cases, the trial Court was directed to grant permission to compound the offence and in some of them proceedings were quashed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. by this Court. Two questions, therefore, arise for determination in the case : (i) whether this Court can direct the trial Court to grant permission to compound an offence which is specifically a non-compoundable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure and (ii) whether inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. can be used to quash proceedings in which parties have compounded specifically declared to be non-compoundable by the Code of Criminal Procedure by mutual agreement.

(2.) The first question has been directly answered in the negative by a Full Bench of this Court in Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cr LR (Raj) 86 : (1993 Cri LJ 3193). It was held by the Full Bench that permission to compound a non-compoundable offence cannot be granted by the Court. The Single Bench decisions directing the trial Court to grant permission to compound non-compoundable offence, are, therefore, without any force of law as they are directly contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court. The Single Bench decisions in Gurcharan Kaur v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cr LR (Raj) 96 : (1993 Cri LJ 2076). In Smt. Jasoda v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Cr LR (Raj) 530 and in Ishwarilal v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 RCC 434 (Raj), therefore, do not lay down good law in view of decision of the Full Bench in Mohan Singh's case (supra). The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111, in which referring to an earlier decision of Supreme Court in Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1987 (2) JT 361, in the special circumstances of the case permission to compound a non-compoundable offence was directed to be granted. In this decision also, the Supreme Court does not seem to have laid down any law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, but it seems that the Supreme Court has acted in the special circumstances of the case under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Mahesh Chandra's case, therefore, cannot be an authority for the proposition that permission to compound a non-compoundable offence can be granted by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) The second question as to whether proceedings can be quashed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. on the ground that parties have compounded an offence which is non-compoundable under the law deserves to be considered now. Single Benches of this Court in Omprakash Modi v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 (1) RLR 389; Mrs. Sudha Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 RCC 525 and an unreported decision in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 683/96 decided on September 13, 1996, take the view that the proceedings could be quashed in appropriate cases under Section 482, Cr. P.C. Looking to the scheme of the Act and scope of Section 482, Cr. P.C. it cannot be said that the power under Section 482 can be used for the purpose of setting at naught a specific provision of the Code under Section 320, Cr. P.C. The High Court cannot convert a non-compoundable offence into a compoundable offence by quashing proceedings under Section 482, Cr. P.C.