HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3317 of 2011 ORDER:- The four petitioners herein are shown as accused in Crime No.4/2011 of Mandamarri Police Station in Adilabad District. They filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to quash the aforesaid FIR. 2. Before taking up this matter it must be mentioned here that petitioners have also filed Criminal Petition No.3316 of 2011 to quash the proceedings in DVC No.52/2010 filed by the second respondent herein against the petitioners on the very same ground of compromise. That petition was dismissed by this Court at the admission stage on 15.04.2011. On that date it was not mentioned and this Court also did not notice that this criminal petition is also between the same parties and connected to the said Criminal Petition No.3316 of 2011. Hence this criminal petition was posted to ‘for orders’ today. This petition has also to fail for the following reasons which were already recorded and made the basis for dismissing Criminal Petition No.3316 of 2011. 3. The second respondent herein Smt Rekha Devi is the wife of the first petitioner. Petitioners 2 and 3 are stated to be the parents of the first petitioner and the fourth petitioner is stated to be their relative. It is seen that she filed a private complaint in the court of I Additional JFCM, Mancherial alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. That complaint was referred by the JFCM to Mandamarri P.S. and thereupon the said police registered it as the aforesaid Crime No.4/2011 for the above offences. It is also seen that the second respondent herein filed a case registered as DVC No.52/2010 against the petitioners under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming various reliefs. 4. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed for quashing the FIR in the aforesaid Crime No.4/2011 on the ground that petitioners have compromised the matter. They also filed Criminal Petition No.3316 of 2011 under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the aforesaid DVC No.52/2010 also on the file of the Additional JFCM, Mancherial on the ground that the parties have compromised the matter. 5. Before I proceed further, it must be mentioned here that the second respondent Rekha Devi @ Rekha Kumari herein filed Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1035/2010 and other petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for certain reliefs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said petitions passed an order on 10.01.2011 and a copy of it is filed in the paper book filed by the petitioners. The said order of the Supreme Court reads as follows. “T.P. (C) No.1035/2010 T.P. (Crl) No.561/2010 T.P. (C) No.1285/2010 The parties to these three transfer petitions, which are none else than the husband and wife in an estranged marriage and her in-laws, are willing to try to resolve their disputes through mediation and are also willing to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad, for the purpose. As agreed between the parties, both Shri Sanjeev Kumar and Smt. Rekha Devi @ Rekha Kumari are directed to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad on February 07, 2011. A report from the Mediation Centre should reach this Court within two months from that date. Till then, the proceedings in Matrimonial Case No.566 of 2010 entitled ‘Sanjeev Kumar v. Rekha Kumari’ pending in the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna (TP (C) No.1035/2010); in DVC Case No.52/2010 entitled ‘Rekha Devi @ Rekha Kumari v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.’ pending in the court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Mancherial (TP (Crl.) No.561/2010); and in OP No.45/2010 titled ‘Rekha Devi @ Rekha Kumari v. Sanjeev Kumar’ pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, shall remain stayed.” 6. From the above order it would be clear that the parties have pleaded the ground of compromise also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the cases mentioned in the said order. Those cases are two matrimonial OPs and DVC No.52/2010 which was the subject matter of Criminal Petition No.3316 of 2011 which was dismissed on 15.04.2011. It is seen that the present Crime No.4/2011 of P.S. Mandamarri is not mentioned in the above order of the Supreme Court and it is not known why it was not mentioned. The above order of the Supreme Court shows that as agreed between the parties the Supreme Court directed both Sri Sanjeev Kumar (first petitioner herein) and Smt Rekha Devi @ Rekha Kumari (second respondent herein) to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court on 07.02.2011 and it further directed that the Mediation Centre should send a report within two months from that date i.e. 07.02.2011 and that thereafter the matter would be again taken up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. In paras-4, 5 and 6 of this petition it is mentioned that parties have accordingly compromised the matter and the terms of compromise are also mentioned in the said paras but it is not mentioned whether any report was sent by the Mediation Centre to the Supreme Court. However in the affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar filed in support of this criminal petition it is mentioned in para-2 thereof that parties have appeared before the mediation centre and they also executed on 05.03.2011 a memorandum of understanding and certain amounts were also paid by the petitioners to the second respondent herein. These are the grounds on which the present Crime No.4/2011 of PS Mandamarri is sought to be quashed. 8. What should however be noted is that the above extracted order of the Supreme Court would show that the Supreme Court has called for a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court and stayed the matters covered by the said order between the parties for taking a final decision in the said petitions after the receipt of the said report. In other words it is clear that the matter is still pending before the Supreme Court for passing orders on the pleas of compromise taken by the parties. The parties should have mentioned about the pendency of this Crime No.4/2011 of P.S. Mandamarri also before the Supreme Court in order to cover this FIR also in the compromise. In the alternative once the report is sent to Supreme Court by the mediation centre they can also raise the issue of this FIR before the Supreme Court for a settlement of the same. Thus it should be noted that when the main compromise proposal in respect of three matters is pending before the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that this matter should also be taken before the Supreme Court so that the same may also be covered by the final orders passed by the Supreme Court. It should also be noted here that if this matter is independently dealt with by this Court that may result in conflict with the order that may be passed by the Supreme Court after the receipt of the mediation report especially as the offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable offences. Hence I am of the opinion that the controversy in this criminal petition should also be placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court before which the compromise proposals in respect of the other three matters are pending for receipt of the report from the mediation centre and passing final orders. In view of the above situation it is not proper for this Court to take up this matter. 9. It is not known as to how when the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, the parties have been advised to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon two decisions of this Court given in SHAIK PAKEER AHMMAD vs. STATE OF AP[1] and SANAPALA JAGANNADHA RAO vs. STATE OF AP[2] to show that this Court can record the compromise and quash the FIR. These decisions cannot help the petitioners in view of the above order of the Supreme Court which shows that the matter is still pending there and in view of the same this Court should not deal with this matter. It is not necessary to go into other aspects. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners then pointed out that this Court can record the compromise and quash the Crime No.4/2011 of PS Mandamarri in order to “secure the ends of justice” as that expression is used in Section 482 Cr.P.C as a ground for quashing a proceeding. That expression “secure the ends of justice” used in Section 482 Cr.P.C would cover only those situations where an impugned order or proceedings requires to be quashed on the ground of an illegality which vitiates the impugned order and where there is no express provision in the Cr.P.C to set it aside but not to a situation like this where a compromise is pleaded as a ground for quashing the case. 11. The compromise can be a ground to record an acquittal in case the offences are compoundable. However in order to act upon a compromise the Court has to satisfy itself firstly about the identity of the parties i.e. their proper identification, secondly about their willingness for effecting compromise and thirdly their agreement about the terms of the compromise. This exercise can be effectively done only by the first Court before which the case is pending with the help of police officers in a police case or with the help of concerned advocates appearing in the trial Court. This exercise has to be done carefully to prevent future complications to ensure that no party comes up at a later date before the Court denying the compromise on the ground of impersonation or on the ground of coercion or fraud and that can be done only by the first Court before which the case is filed. Hence I am of the opinion that this Court should not entertain a petition for quashing the case on the ground of compromise when it is at the stage of FIR or pending as a case for enquiry or trial before the trial Court. This aspect is stated as it was argued by the petitioner’s counsel though it is not necessary for this case in view of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court. 12. There is another aspect also in this matter. It should be noted that the FIR shows that it is registered for the offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 also. Section 8(2) of the said Act says that the said offences are non- compoundable. In RAMGOPAL vs. STATE OF M.P.[3] {SLP (Crl.) No.6494 of 2010} the Supreme Court has laid down that a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC cannot be straightaway set aside and an acquittal recorded because of a settlement as that offence is not compoundable. Holding so their lordships observed that certain offences mentioned in the said order should be made compoundable and made recommendations in that behalf to the law commission also to consider the matter. When the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has expressed such a limitation on its power in dealing with non- compoundable offences, it follows that this Court has also no power to quash an FIR relating to non-compoundable offences on the ground of compromise. Hence this is also a minus point for the petitioners apart from the fact that three other matters are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to passing of final orders on the ground of compromise. This aspect has already been mentioned supra. 12. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons this petition is dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 25th April 2011 CVRK [1] 2006 (1) ALD (Cri) 817 [2] 2006 (2) ALT (Cri) 46 [3] 2010 (3) ALT (CRI)(SC) 109