HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1474/2018
Mayank Jha S/o Shri Harendra Nath Jha B/c Brahmin, Aged About 38
Years, R/o G-587, Govindpuram, Gaziyabad, Up.
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Neha Sharma D/o Shri Sandesh Sharma B/c Brahmin, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o C-215, Talvandi, Kota, District Kota, Raj.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Sharma, for
Ms. Rekha Arora
For the State : Mr. Prakash Thrkuria, Public Prosecutor
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in a case arising out of criminal
case No.54/2011 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No.3
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends
that the petitioner was married with the respondent No.2.
Mr. Sandesh Sharma, father of the respondent No.2 – Neha
Sharma, is present in person before this Court. He has stated that the
marriage was performed on 17.06.2009 at Gaziabad. He has further
was registered against husband and his relatives. He stated that Neha
Sharma after affecting compromise has left for the United States of
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1474/2018]
Mr. Govind Sharma, appearing for Ms. Rekha Arora, ld.
counsel for the respondent No.2 – Neha Sharma, has submitted that
due to intervention of the Lok Adalat, memorandum of understanding
compromise was arrived at between the parties and as per same, Neha
Sharma was to be paid Rs.20,00,000/-. Counsel has further submitted
that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid in two installments.
Mr. Sandesh Sharma, father of respondent No.2/ aggrieved-
wife has stated that the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- has been received as
per settlement deed arrived at the behest of the District Legal Services
Authority, Kota. True copy of settlement deed attested by Mr. Govind
Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Sandesh Sharma, father of Neha Sharma, is
taken on record and is made part of the paper book.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that the compromise was accepted by the trial Court, qua
offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. vide order dated
27.02.2018 (annexure-2). However, the trial Court has rejected the
compromise so far offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. is
concerned on the ground that the same is non-compoundable.
The learned counsels appearing for the respective parties
have jointly prayed that since the matrimonial dispute has been
amicably resolved, the criminal cases pending between the parties as
well as impugned F.I.R. 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 petitions.
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.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1474/2018]
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 and
in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi
[supra], the present petition is allowed. The criminal case No.54/2011
pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No.3, (North), Kota, along
with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J