IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 753 of 2005 Manoj Kumar & Others. .……Applicant. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. …….….…..Respondent. Present: Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Date of Decision : 8.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1, and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 2. An application (CRMA No. 1004 of 2010) has been filed in this case by the applicant for compounding/composition of offences. The matter has been listed before this Court on the said application. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was filed by respondent no. 3, who is the father of the bride against his son in law as well as his father and mother, who were named as accused no. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the FIR. The case was hence registered as Case Crime No. 113 of 2005 under Section 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. read with 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. A statement has been made at the bar by the counsel for the applicant that consequent to the filing of the FIR good sense prevailed on the parties and they have reconciled with the matter and for the last three year both are staying as husband and wife. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, who represents respondent no. 3 as well as the wife has also supported the statement as well as the compounding application moved by the applicant. 5. On these set of facts, the matter is heard and decided finally. 6. The powers of the court for composition of offence under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. are well defined. 7. Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “(2) The offences punishable under the section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the table 2 next following may, with the permission of the court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table.” 8. The Apex Court has defined the powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in matter relating to compounding of offence. In B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 it has been held that the Courts normally would not go beyond the powers vested in them under Section 320 and only such offence which have specifically been mentioned in Section 320 of Cr.P.C. can be compounded, yet in an appropriate case the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can set aside the proceedings. 9. The inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have also been well defined in a large number of decisions, such as in the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, and more recently in Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I and another 2008 (4) JCC 2311. In a given case, where the parties have compromised or where it is apparent that the proceedings itself are malafide or the proceedings are no better than an abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court must exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to meet the ends of justice and must quash the proceedings, even in cases which are not compoundable. In the present case, which primarily was a matrimonial dispute, when criminal proceedings were initiated in an outburst of tempers by the side of the wife by filing an FIR. However, the matter has since been reconciled and as it has been stated by both the parties, which are present before this Court, that the husband and wife are living peacefully for the last three years. On these facts this Court has no doubt in its mind whatsoever that the criminal proceedings, which are presently pending are nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and in order to meet the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 437 of 2005 State Vs. Manoj and others under Section 498-A, 323,506 read with 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Laksar District Haridwar are hereby set aside. 3 10. The instant C-482 application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 11. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 8.9.2010 Rathour