IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 345 of 2011 (Under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C.) Amar Singh Bisht and others ………….. Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand .…...……. Respondent Present: Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Bohra, brief holder for the State/respondent. Date: 9th May, 2011 JUDGMENT Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J. Smt. Shobha Bisht filed a First Information Report. The ingredients of offences alleged in the said First Information Report were such that, if proved, the same would attract punishments under Sections 498A, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The First Information Report led to investigation, whereupon a charge sheet has been filed. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar has taken cognizance on the charge sheet and thereupon issued a bailable warrant against the accused persons. 2. The informant has, in the meantime, compromised with all accused persons. Offences punishable under Section 504 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Offences punishable under Section 498A and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable. 3. In the First Information Report, allegation by the wife was not only confined to the husband, but was also directed against other members of the family of her in-laws. By reason of the 2 compromise, the wife has returned to her matrimonial home and is residing with her husband and in-laws in peace. In the circumstances, the husband, the wife and other in-laws of the informant have jointly filed this application seeking a direction to bring to an end the matters complained of in the said First Information Report. On an earlier occasion, the applicants herein approached this Court and brought to the notice of the Court that they have entered into a compromise, when this Court directed the parties to approach the trial court. At that stage, the Court was only concerned with the compromise and not compounding of the offences. The Court felt that compromise itself is such that the same may give adequate relief to the parties. 4. When the Legislature has not permitted parties to compound offences, not mentioned in Section 320 of the Code and those mentioned in Section 8 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, no one is entitled to compound such offences and, accordingly, even if there is a compromise inter se the parties, the trial court, as was directed by this Court on earlier occasion, could not permit compounding of such offences on the basis of compromise. 5. However, for the purposes of upholding public order and dignity of society, the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code is not circumscribed by what has been provided in Section 320 of the Code and Section 8 of the Act. A family, which was on the verge of collapse, has re-united, which, in turn, is likely to bring in peace in the society and prosperity for the people at large. In the event, despite such effort made, parties are forced to be adversaries against each other in criminal proceedings, the same would disturb tranquility of the society and would be against public interest. 6. In the circumstances, it is expedient in this case to use the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings 3 pursuant to the charge sheet in question and all the steps taken thereunder, this Court quashes the same. ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 09.05.2011 P. Singh