Piyush Yadav vs State & Anr on 27 February, 2018

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 628 / 2018
Piyush Yadav S/o Shri Gajraj Singh, By Caste Yadav, Resident of
House No. 82, Behind Ganpati Nagar, Pushkar Road, Ajmer.


1. State of Rajasthan

2. Priyanka Parihar W/o Piyush, D/o Shri Utsavlal Parihar, Resident
of House No. 82, Behind Ganpat Nagar, Pushkar Road, Ajmer, At
Present C/o House of Heeraji Bauji, Behind Bholibai Temple,
Khanda Falsa Road, Jalore Gate, Jodhpur.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Bharat Shrimali.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Yogesh Parmar.
Judgment / Order

The instant misc. petition has been filed seeking quashing of

the proceedings of Cr.Case No.18150/2017 pending in the court of

learned Special Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (PCPNDT

Act Cases), Jodhpur Metro for the offences under Sections 498A

IPC on the basis of the compromise.

The respondent No.2 is the first informant and the petitioner

is her husband.

The learned counsel representing the respective parties i.e.

petitioner husband and the respondent No.2 wife, submit that the

litigating spouses have mutually decided to settle down the

dispute inter-se between them. They thus, submit that the
(2 of 2)

proceedings going on in the trial court against the petitioner

should be quashed.

They submit that an application for termination of the

proceedings through a mutual compromise was filed in the Court

below. The trial Court vide order dated 29.11.2017 has accepted

the said application for the offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C.

and has compounded the proceedings to that extent. So far as the

offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. is concerned, the application

has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the offence

under Section 498A of I.P.C. is non-compoundable.

In this view of the matter and looking to the guidelines

issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs.

State of Punjab Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC-426, it is

apparent that allowing further continuance of the proceedings

going on against the petitioner in the learned trial Court cannot be

said to be expedient in the interest of justice. If the proceedings

are allowed to continue, it may result into the compromise being


Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed and the

proceedings of the Cr. Case No.18150/2017 pending in the Court

of learned Special Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

(PCPNDT Act Cases), Jodhpur Metro for the offence under Section

498A of the I.P.C. are hereby quashed. Stay petition is also

disposed of.


/tarun goyal/

Leave a Comment

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