IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 114 of 2008 Captain Vijay Kumar Thapa & others .……Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …….….…..Respondents. Present: Mr. Bhuwnesh Joshi, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Date of Decision : 20.8.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Mr. Bhuwnesh Joshi, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 and Mr. Praeep Lohani, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants challenging the summoning order dated 1.11.2007 and the subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against them in Criminal Case No. 1259 of 2007 under Sections 498 A, 323, 504,506,494 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 3. Now an application (CRMA No. 919 of 2010) has been filed in this case by the applicants for compounding/composition of offences. The matter has been listed before this Court on the said application. 4. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was filed by respondent no. 2, who is the wife of applicant no. 1 against her in laws. The case was hence registered as Case Crime No. 139 of 2007 under Sections 498A, 323,504, 506, 494 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. A statement has been made at the bar by the counsel for the applicants that in the present matter since the parties have already reached a settlement inasmuch as the wife/complainant has received an alimony of Rs. 7,00,000/-, the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1259 of 2007 be quashed. The wife is being represented by Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Advocate who has also categorically stated that she has received Rs. 7,00,000/- as alimony and a settlement has been reached between the parties and affidavit has also been filed to this effect. 2 6. On these set of facts, the matter is heard and decided finally. 7. The powers of the court for composition of offence under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. are well defined. 8. 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 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.” 9. 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. 10. 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 mala fide 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. The present case primarily relates to a matrimonial dispute where the parties have already reached a settlement before the Family Court, as it has been stated by both the parties. 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. 1259 of 2007 under Sections 498 A, 323, 504,506,494 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the court below. 3 11. The instant C-482 application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 12. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 20.8.2010 Avneet