ORDER O.P. Garg, J.
1. Heard learned counsel Sri Sunil Kumar for the applicants, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State of U.P. and learned counsel Sri R. B. Sahai for the opposite party No. 2.
2. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is prayed that the entire proceedings in Crime case No. 702 of 1996 - State v. Haji Nihal Ahmad, under Sections 308/323/504, IPC, Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulendshahr pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr be quashed/stayed.
3. The opposite party No. 2, namely, Mohd. Sualeh lodged an FIR under Ss. 452/323/504, IPC (case crime No. 483/1995) on 9-10-1995 at Police Station Kotwali Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet has been submitted under Ss. 308/ 323/504, IPC.
4. Smt. Naushad Parveen daughter of applicant No. 1 Haji Nihal Ahmad was married to Haji Giyas Mohd. who happened to be the real brother of first informant Mohd. Sualeh. The applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are sons of applicant No. 1, i.e., the real brothers of Smt. Naushad Parveen. The relations between the parties became acrimonious as it is alleged that Smt. Naushad Parveen was mentally and physically tortured on account of non-fulfilment of the dowry demand. It is alleged that on 9-10-1995, father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law of Smt. Naushad Parveen along with her Nandoi Raza Hasan and two other persons entered the house of applicants and created a nuisance and tried to forcibly take away Smt. Naushad Parveen from the house of the applicants. A free fight had taken place between the parties with the result Mohd. Sualeh, the first informant and his brother Haji Giyas Mohd. sustained injuries. Consequently, an FIR as aforesaid, was lodged by the opposite party No. 2. During the investigation of the case, the parties came to terms and after patching up their differences, reduced in writing, a settlement/ compromise, which was filed before the Investigation Officer. For variety of reasons, it is alleged that the Investigating Officer was not prepared to accept the compromise and with a view to harass both the parties, submitted charge-sheet on 12-1 -1996 under Ss. 308/323/504, IPC. The parties filed a copy of the compromise before the concerned Magistrate but it was not taken into consideration on the ground that the offence under Section 308, IPC is not compoundable. Learned counsel for the applicants urged that since the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the case to go on against the applicants. The opposite party No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit and in paragraph 8 thereof, it has been asserted that since the parties are closely related, they have compromised the matter, the case he decided on the basis of compromise itself. It has also been deposed by the opposite party No. 2 that since the matter has been compromised, it was not necessary to repell the parawise facts contained in the application.
5. On behalf of the State, a counter affidavit has been filed by Shiv Pal Singh Chauhan, Sub Inspector, denying various allegations and asserting that the compromise entered into between the parties cannot be taken into consideration as the offence under Section 308, IPC is not compoundable.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as opposite party No. 2 are unanimous on the point that a compromise between the parties has been arrived at and that the opposite party No. 2 does not want to proceed with the case. A number of documents have been brought on record, which indicate that the parties have, in fact, patched up their differences.
7. Now the only question involved in the present case is whether in a case which is not compoundable, the entire proceedings of the criminal case should be quashed or the applicants should be allowed to be tried by the Court below, the ultimate result of which would be acquittal of the applicants as the opposite party No. 2 is not likely to support the prosecution case. This fact cannot be lost sight of that parties are closely related. The applicant No. 1 is the father-in-law' and the applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are brothers-in-law of the injured Haji Giyas Mohd. to whom Naushad Parveen was married. The first informant, as said above, is the real brother of the husband of Smt. Naushad parveen. As a matter of fact, intially the case was rightly registered under Ss. 452/323/504, IPC on the basis of the FIR of O.P. No. 2. Subsequently, the case was altered to Section 308, IPC also. It is doubtful whether the case was required to be converted" under Section 308, IPC as the injuries sustained by Haji Giyas Mohd, husband of Nausad Parveen were simple in nature. It is therefore, not understandable under what circumstances, the case was converted under Section 308, IPC. There appears to be much force in the allegation of the applicants that the Investigating Officer was bent upon in submitting a charge sheet against the applicants for obvious reasons. The trial against the applicants would be an exercise in futility for one simple reason that the opposite party No. 2 who lodged the FIR and other witnesses of prosecution are bound to stage a volte-face. There is no chance of convicting the applicants in the case. The dispute, by and large, is likely to effect the matrimonial life of Smt. Naushad Parveen who happens to be daughter of applicant No. 1 and sister of applicant Nos. 2 to 4. In case the trial is permitted to go on, without any corresponding advantage, it would have adverse repercussions on the married life of Smt. Naushad Parveen and Haji Giyas Mohd. The end product of law is justice. Since the parties have themselves patched up their differences by settling the dispute outside the Court, they should not be -unnecessarily driven to face the fruitless trial. Compounding of the case is one thing while reconciliation between the parties is another. In 1976 Cri LJ 217 (Kant) S.M. Jayaram v. State of Karnataka, it was held, thus :-
...to call the 'compromise' as compounding' is a distinction with quite a lot of difference. The two cannot be equated. After the parties had compromised among themselves, the Police had no business at a later stage to butt into the Court and file a charge sheet and then further represent that the charge sheet being one for theft under Section 379, IPC, can be compounded only with the permission of the Court. The compromise being a fait accompli there was no question of compounding.
In another case reported in 1983 (3) Crimes 694 (Delhi), N.P. Singh v. State, in the similar circumstances, as are appearing in the present case, the proceedings in a criminal case under Ss. 498-A and 405, IPC were quashed on a application under S, 482, Cr. P.C. with the observation that inherent power can be invoked to do justice notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. In the background of above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution against the applicants and, therefore, it is necessary to quash the proceedings in the criminal case.
9. In the result, the application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. succeeds and is allowed. The entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 702 of 1996 (Crime case No. 483 of 1995) State of U.P. v. Haji Nihal Ahmad and Ors. under Sections 308/323/ 504, IPC, P. S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr are quashed.