CRIMINAL MISC. M-29019 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 05, 2011 Pawan Kumar and others .....Petitioners VERSUS The State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. C. Sabharwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have been convicted for offences under Sections 406, 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo various period of rigorous imprisonments varying from one month to one year coupled with fine. The petitioners have filed an appeal against the order of their conviction and sentences so imposed. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties have entered into a compromise and on account thereof, the petitioners have tendered bank draft amounting to `1,60,000/- and another draft of `35,000/- to respondent No.2. Rest of the bank drafts have been deposited in the CRIMINAL MISC. M-29019 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: Court. Petitioner No.1 and his estranged wife have also filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of Marriage. Now the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR and have also prayed for grant of permission to compound the offences. The petitioners have further prayed for direction to the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, for granting permission to compound the offences. Similar issue had earlier arisen before this Court and this Court in Joginder Ram & others Vs. State of Punjab & another, 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 495, has held that the parties have to first approach the Appellate Court for the relief on the basis of compromise and it would not be appropriate to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of the appeal. The attention of counsel for the petitioners was drawn to this judgement and he was asked to consider and make submissions as to how the petition can be maintained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of appeal. In addition, the counsel was asked to show how direction to an Appellate Court to compound the offences would be within the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised by the Court, which is ceased of the issue and it CRIMINAL MISC. M-29019 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: will not be appropriate to issue any direction to the Court to act in any particular manner. It is only when such plea is raised before the Court concerned i.e. lower Appellate Court in this case that this Court may be able to consider the matter, if approached as per law. In fact, the observations made while disposing of Criminal Misc. 21880 M of 2008, as noticed in Joginder Singh's case (supra) would be relevant here to notice as well:- “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 CRIMINAL MISC. M-29019 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: 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.....” The reliance placed by counsel for the petitioners on Dr.Arvind Barsaul etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & another, 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 910, may not help the petitioner because the Supreme Court has invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Such power is not available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It would not be appropriate to invoke jurisdiction to issue direction as prayed for. The petitioners would have to pray for any appropriate relief from the lower Appellate Court, where their appeal is pending. The petition is accordingly dismissed. October 05, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE