SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Lokesh Sharma And Ors vs State Of Raj And Anr on 15 December, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6586 / 2017

1. Lokesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma B/c Sharma,
R/o House No.4440, KGB Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, PS Mank Chowk, Jaipur,
Raj.

2. Sangeeta Sharma D/o Late Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma B/c Sharma,
R/o House No.4440, KGB Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, PS Mank Chowk, Jaipur,
Raj.

3. Smt. Chandra Kanta Sharma W/o Late Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma
B/c Sharma, R/o House No.4440, KGB Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, PS Mank
Chowk, Jaipur, Raj.

—-Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan Through PP.

2. Priyanka Sharma W/o Shri Lokesh Sharma, D/o Shri Sukhdev Prasad
B/c Sharma, R/o A-505, Manglam Apartment Apartment, Takia Ki
Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur PS Kardhani, Raj.

—-Respondents

__

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Sharma

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sarita Sharma

For the State Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor

__

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

/ Order

15/12/2017

Instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred on behalf

of accused-petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in a case

arising out of First Information Report bearing No.232/2013 registered

at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (West) for offence punishable

under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. in view of the compromise arrived

at between the parties.

Briefly stated that the marriage of Lokesh Sharma, the

petitioner No.1 herein was performed with Ms. Priyanka Sharma, the
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-6586/2017]

respondent No.2, herein on 07.07.2011. During subsistence of

marriage, differences arose and aggrieved-wife lodged F.I.R.

No.232/2013 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (West) for

offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. The above said

F.I.R. was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted against the

petitioners. During pendency of proceedings, better sense prevailed

upon the parties and a compromise was arrived at between the parties.

The said compromise was presented before the ld. trial Court and the

said Court on 27.05.2017 verified the factum of compromise and

accepted the same, qua offence under Section 406 I.P.C. being

compoundable offence. However, the said compromise was rejected,

qua offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. as the same is non-

compoundable. The compromise has been annexed with the present

petition as Annexure-2.

The order dated 27.05.2017 (Annexure-3) passed by the ld.

trial Court is reproduced herein below :

“27-05-2017
,-ih-ih- mifLFkr vfHk;qDr yksds’k] laxhrk mQZ xqM~Mw] pUnzdkUrk e; vf/koDrk mifLFkr
ifjokfn;k fiz;adk ‘kekZ e; vf/koDrk mifLFkr mHk; i{kksa }kjk jkthukek vUrxZr /kkjk
498,] 406 vkbZihlh esa is’k fd;k x;kA mHk; i{kksa dh igpku muds vf/koDrk }kjk dh
xbZA jkthukek lqu ledj lgh gksuk tkfgj fd;kA /kkjk 406 vkbZihlh dkfcys jkthukek
gksus ls jkthukek /kkjk 406 vkbZihlh esa rLnhd fd;k x;kA.”

Today, both the parties are present in person before this

Court. They have been identified by their respective Counsels. They

have vouchsafed the factum of compromise.

It is a case where matrimonial dispute had turned sour due

to differences of opinion between the parties.

The learned counsel appearing for the parties have jointly

submitted that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-6586/2017]

between the parties, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. may be quashed so

that the parties can pursue their life and move ahead.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties

and perused the contents of the instant petition.

It has been often held by the Courts that hour of the

compromise is the finest hour between the parties and the Court while

exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash

the proceedings, even qua non-compoundable offences.

Furthermore, in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of

Harayana, reported in [(2003) 4 S.C.C. 675], the Apex Court has

opined that although offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is non-

compoundable, but in cases of matrimonial dispute to bring families at

peace, if the parties arrive at compromise, then proceedings, qua

offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. can be quashed by invoking its

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Considering the fact that both the parties have resolved

their matrimonial dispute and the joint prayer made by the parties,

present in person and in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the

case of B.S. Joshi [supra], the present petition is accepted and the

impugned F.I.R. bearing No.232/2013, registered at Police Station

Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (West) for offence punishable under Sections

498-A and 406 I.P.C., along with all subsequent proceedings is, hereby,

quashed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

ashok

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh