Saturday, July 6, 2013

Offense compounded against one is compounded against all. How bigamy allegation becomes 498a, probably MILKED?, then compromised, then compounded against husband, but left un compounded against another FALSE accused (probably the other wise) and the false or rightly accused woman had to run to the high court for compounding


Offense compounded against one is compounded against all. How bigamy allegation becomes 498a, probably MILKED?, then compromised, then compounded against husband, but left un compounded against another FALSE accused (probably the other wise) and the false or rightly accused woman had to run to the high court for compounding

***************************************************

<FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica, Sans Serif" SIZE="+2" COLOR="#000000">


Notes
**************
* Wife allegaes Bigamy
* wife alleges that her mother in law was aware of offence of bigamy
* still wife files case Sections u/s 498-A, 494 and 420 I.P.C. as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act !!!
* every matrimonial dispute and death of a woman gets converted to 498a in this country !!
* Then [probably after MILKING] wife compounds offense against SOME accused but NOT all accused
* The pending accused (second wife  - Smt. Kalpana) approach Trial court later to get the offense compounded ..., but Trial court was NOT compounding the offense as daughter in law was NOT appearing for compounding !!
* So Ms. Kalpana, the accused (probably the husband's second wife) !! yes of course ANOTHER woman, runs to High court to get case compounded
* wife resists that at the high court by impleading as second respondent and filing counter stating that there is a prima facie case against the appellant (probably second wife - Smt. Kalpana)
* High court says Sections 320(1) and 320(2) Cr.P.C. envisage that what can be compounded is the offenses and not case against individual accused.
* Once an offense is compounded, it stands compounded against all the accused and not against individual accused

</FONT>


**********************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS DOT NET
**********************************************************



THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR      

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10900 of 2009  

26.07.2012

<FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica, Sans Serif" SIZE="+3" COLOR="#000000">
Kalpana Kopaley @ K.Kalpana 

State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. and another
</FONT>


Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sharad Sanghi

Counsel for respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor

Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri George Victor

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:  NIL


<FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica, Sans Serif" SIZE="+2" COLOR="#000000">


ORDER:-


The petitioner/A-3 seeks for quashment of the case against her in C.C.No.890 of 2008 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri.

2.      Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant had compounded the offence and that the case was acquitted against A-2.  He further contended that as the petitioner could not appear at the time of the compounding of the offence, as N.B.W. was pending against her, the trial Court did not compound the offence against the petitioner.  He submitted that N.B.W. had already been recalled and that the petitioner is not able to obtain orders of compounding of the offence from the trial Court as the 2nd respondent has not been cooperating before the trial Court to report settlement.

3.      The 2nd respondent filed a counter contending that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and this petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.      The case was registered against three accused including the petitioner herein under Sections 498-A, 494 and 420 I.P.C. as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the complaint of the 2nd respondent herein.  A charge sheet was subsequently laid before the court, which was registered as C.C.No.890 of 2008 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate.  The case of the petitioner, however, is that A-1 is the husband of the petitioner/A-3 and that the de facto complainant was subsequently married to A-1 while the marriage between A-1 and the petitioner continued to subsist.  The de facto complainant, on the other hand, contended that she was the legally wedded wife of A-1 and that the petitioner contacted marriage with A-1 knowing fully well that the marriage between the de facto complainant and A-1 had been subsisting.

5.      In that background, the de facto complainant entered into compromise with A-2, who is the mother of A-1. The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate recorded compromise on 09.11.2009 that the case was compounded as against A-2. 

<FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica, Sans Serif" SIZE="+3" COLOR="#000000">

6.      Obviously, both Sections 320(1) and 320(2) Cr.P.C. envisage that what can be compounded is the offences and not case against individual accused.  Once an offence is compounded, it stands compounded against all the accused and not against individual accused.

</FONT>

<B>

<BIG>
7.      Consequently, whether the de facto complainant compounded or did not agree to compound the offence against the petitioner/A-3, the offence automatically stood compounded against the petitioner/A-3 as well once the case was compounded against A-2.  In that view of the matter, C.C.No.890 of 2008 against the petitioner/A-3 deserves to be quashed.

</BIG>

8.      Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.  The case against the petitioner/A-3 in C.C.No.890 of 2008 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri stands quashed.

</B>

_________________ 

 K.G.SHANKAR,J 

26th July, 2012

</FONT>


*************************************************************************

 

This judgment was collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgement or the judgement itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


*************************************************************************