ORDER
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. This petition is filed to quash the FIR No. 52 dated 27.3.1997 and the consequential criminal proceedings in the Court of CJM, Chandigarh. The accused are being prosecuted for the offences under Sections 406/498-A, I.P.C. The petitioners are seeking to quash the complaint or two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the complaint does not disclose any offence either under Section 406, I.P.C. or under Section 498-A, I.P.C. A reading of the complaint clearly shows that there was a demand for dowry and the dowry articles were not returned and that the complainant has been treated cruelly and tortured. It is clearly mentioned in the FIR that due to constant dowry demand and physical violence the life of the complainant became miserable and her health broken down. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations in the FIR do not make out the case.
2. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is a delay of one year in filing the FIR. It is clear that FIR was filed in the year 1997. According to the petitioner she filed criminal complaint in the Court on 31.7.1997 which was referred by the Magistrate to the police for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. Admittedly Section 468, Cr. P.C. is not applicable to the present case. Whetther the delay of one year as alleged by the petitioner is fatal to the case of the prosecution is a matter to be decided by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence.
3. Lastly the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a compromise between the parties and, therefore, the FIR and the criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 2 are liable to be quashed. The offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. is not compoundable. Therefore, Section 320, Cr. P.C. is not applicable and the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of compromise in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rampal v. State of J&K, JT1999 (1) SC 147=I (1999) SLT 317= I (1999) CCR 29 (SC), and Surinder Nath Mohanti v. State of Orissa, 1999 (2) RCR (Crl.) 683=IV (1999) SLT 346=III (1999) CCR 20 (SC),. Even the case under Section 498-A is not made out. The offence under Section 406 is compoundable only with the permission of the Court and the Court which can grant permission to compound is the Court in which the prosecution is pending. Therefore, this Court in exercise of the powers under Section 482, Cr, P.C. cannot quash the FIR since it is a matter to be determined whether there is really any compromise.
4. In view of what has been stated above petition is dismissed.
