1 appln1484-09 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICTION NO. 1484 OF 2009 Dr. Sudip Puran Raina .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. Sameer P. Nangre for the applicant Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 7th February, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard both the sides. 2. This application is filed for quashing the proceedings bearing CC No. 4545/PW/2005 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Andheri against the present applicant. FIR (CR 748/04)was registered against the applicant for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of I.P.C. which is non compoundable. Now, the applicant’s case before this Court is that there is settlement and compromise between him and his wife who is respondent no.2 in this application and therefore he can legitimately compromise and compound the offence and this 2 appln1484-09 Court has inherent power to direct quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 3. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads as : 482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court._ Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” Nothing is pointed out that there is abuse of process of the Court where the said proceedings are pending. Admittedly the said Court is competent Court and has jurisdiction to try the said offence in the said proceedings. The offences are also classified. As (i) “compoundable” with/without permission of Court and (ii) those cannot be compounded are termed as “non-compoundable”. Admittedly the offence in this case is non-compoundable and therefore the Trial Court may not go for compounding such offences and that is why the application is filed before this Court. As it is evident that the applicant is not the complainant. He is accused, so he cannot ask for compounding of the offence. It is only the right or privilege of the complainant. Filing such application by the accused alone is totally misconceived and unknown to law. The parties who 3 appln1484-09 pray for desired relief must be the petitioner or applicant. The complainant is respondent no. 2 and there is no such case of the respondent no.2 before this Court. The Court cannot make out the case of a party when the party has no petition asking for any such reliefs. Asking for compounding of the offence unilaterally by the applicant/ husband who is accused, is not sustainable in law. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 (SC) i B. S. Joshi & others Vs. State of Haryana & others. The learned counsel has referred para 12 of the said decision, which reads thus: “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. “ Learned Counsel for the applicant filed true copy of the compromise deed presented before the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu in File No. 536/HMA. Perused the said copy though it is not certified. The said compromise was presented for getting divorce from the court and that court did not verify the said compromise for compounding of the offence under Section 498-A or any such offence. It is seen that one of the terms and conditions of the said compromise was that - ”That 2 nd party shall not pursue the criminal case FIR No. 748/2004 dated 30.11.2004 filed at Oshiwara Police 4 appln1484-09 Station, Ahdheri, Mumbai, pending against the first party in the Court of Andheri Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Court No.22. The 2 nd party shall also withdraw the case and cooperate in it ts quashing. Thus, it appears that the present applicant- husband wants to enforce those conditions by filing this petition unilaterally. 5. The above terms and conditions were agreed between both the parties and therefore they become the necessary parties for these petition/application and for its enforcement or otherwise. No doubt this may give rise some cause of action for the parties to approach or adopt the appropriate remedy before the forum before they have been prosecuted or the respondent/complainant should be a petitioner for such compromise. The parties are given liberty to adopt proper course in order to enable this court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction. Liberty is given to the applicant to file a joint application in the light of the above observation. 6. The application is disposed of accordingly . ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )