@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Hon''ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners u/s 482 Cr. P.C., challenging the order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kota,(hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Cr. Case No. 205/1998, whereby the Court has framed the charge against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. During the course of hearing of the petition, the parties had shown their willingness to settle their disputes, and hence the Court vide the order dated 28.5.2012, had sent the matter to the Mediator, Mediation Centre, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for exploring the possibility of settlement. Accordingly, the parties had remained present before the Mediator, and had amicably settled their disputes including the present petition. The report of the Mediator dated 3.9.2012, is on record of this petition. The learned counsel for the parties have stated that the parties had remained present before the Court on 12.9.2012, however, the matter could not be heard Yesterday.
2. In view of the above and taking into consideration the report of the Mediator, it appears that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the respondent No. 1 Upma Sharma @ Elu, had also agreed for the disposal of the Cr. Case No. 205/1998, pending before the trial court, in which the charge was framed against the petitioner, which is under challenge in the petition.
3. So far as the powers of High Court u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. are concerned, it can not be gainsaid that they are wider than the powers u/s 320 Cr. P.C. for permitting the parties to compound the non-compoundable offence. At this juncture a pertinent observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. V. Radhika & Anr. (2011) 10 SCC 705 reads as under:-.
17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable u/s 320 Cr. P.C. is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr. P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution u/s 482 Cr. P.C. on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable u/s 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 Cr. P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr. P.C.
18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power u/s 482 Cr. P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situation in which the exercise of power u/s 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.
4. In view of the above stated legal position and in view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, this is a fit case to quash the Criminal Proceedings pending before the trial court. In that view of the matter, the order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the trial court and the proceedings of Cr. Case No. 205/1998, pending before the trial court are quashed. The petition stands allowed accordingly.
