There is compromise with my wife in a criminal case. My wife is living with me after compromise but the court refused to quash criminal case initiated by my wife under 498 A IPC. There was some dispute between me and my wife therefore, my wife had left my house and was living with her parents. In the influence of her parents she lodged an FIR for the offence of cruelty and demand of dowry. After a lapse of six years we had decided to live together hence, compromised all matters and settled our dispute out of the court. Then I moved an application to the court for dropping the criminal case. But the court has refused. My wife is not ready to appear in court, the court muharrir said that a warrant shall be issued against my wife if fails to appear in court. I am facing great problem how to settle this criminal case.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
The trial court’s refusal of your application is based on the fact that the offences of cruelty and dowry demand are non-compoundable, as per Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section categorises certain offences as compoundable, meaning they can be settled between the parties involved upon the will of the victim. However, Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not designated as compoundable offences under Section 320 CRPC. Therefore, the trial court’s decision to deny your application appears appropriate.
In this situation, your next course of action would be to file a joint petition in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings. The High Court possesses exceptional power under Section 482 CRPC and can consider special circumstances to determine whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to allow the prosecution to continue.
Additionally, in Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], the Supreme Court held that the sole purpose of Section 482 crpc is to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits.
Your wife is living with you and she is not willing to carry on this criminal proceeding. Therefore, chances of conviction are very bleak. If this proceeding will carry on and your wife becomes hostile the court cannot hold you guilty. So this proceeding became a futile exercise for both complainant and the court. Hence, such a proceeding should be quashed in the interest of justice.
In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1988) 1 SCC 692], the Supreme Court established that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features present in a particular case to determine whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to allow a prosecution to continue. If the court deems that the chances of an ultimate conviction are slim and no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuing with the criminal prosecution, it may quash the proceedings.
In B.S. Joshi & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr AIR 2003 SC 1386 the Supreme Court has held that:
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
If the offence is non-compoundable the high court has power under Section 482 crpc to quash that proceeding for the ends of justice. Provisions of Section 320 crpc does not limit the inherent power of the high court vested by Section 482 crpc. The high court may quash the criminal proceeding despite the fact that offences are non-compoundable. For more legal help please visit Kanoon India.
