HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1047/2018
1. Naresh Aswani S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Aswani, R/o Plot No. 4-
Ga-2, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Ashok Kumar Aswani S/o Late Shri Magan Lal, B/c Sindhi, R/o
Plot No. 4-Ga-2, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Smt. Nandani Aswani W/o Shri Naresh Aswani D/o Shri Arjun
Das Burbani, B/c Sindhi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Plot No. A-
79, Krishna Colony, Near Swami Santi Prakash Dharmshala,
Ramgarh, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Tanwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Lal Sharma
For the State : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
/ Order
04/04/2018
Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of First Information Report No.173/2014
registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (North) for
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 472, 323, 341, 354 (A)
(B) (C) (D) and 420 I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
Briefly stated the respondent No.2 – Smt. Nandani Aswani
on 06.03.2010 as per Hindu Customs Rites was married with Naresh
Aswani. Differences arose between the parties leading to registration of
First Information Report. During pendency of litigation, better sense
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1047/2018]
prevailed and on 07.02.2018 the parties affected a compromise and
amicably settled the dispute.
Smt. Nandani Aswani, complainant-respondent No.2 is
present in person before this Court. She has been identified by her
Counsel Mr. Shyam Lal Sharma.
Smt. Nandani Aswani has stated that during subsistence of
marriage, a son namely Bhavya was born. It is stated that as per
compromise, the family of the petitioners-accused have agreed to pay
Rs.40,00,000/-, out of which Rs.20,00,000/- is to be paid to minor son
Bhavya, whereas remaining Rs.20,00,000/- to Smt. Nandani Aswami,
respondent/ aggrieved-wife. It has also been agreed between the
parties that the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- given to son – Bhavya shall
be kept in the Fixed Deposit, till he attains the age of majority.
The learned counsel appearing for the parties have
submitted that the compromise was presented before the trial Court
and the trial Court on 07.02.2018 had passed the following order :-
“,0ih0ih0 mifLFkrA
vfHk;qDr ujs’k vklokuh o v’kksd dqekj vklokuh e; vf/koDrk mi0A izkFkhZ;k ufUnuh
vklokuh e; vf/koDrk mi0 i{kdkjku us la;qDr :i ls jkthukek gksuk tkfgj fd;k ,oa
ikoyh vkt gh ryc fd;s tkus dk fuosnu djus ij ikoyh vkt is’kh esa yh xbZA
i{kdkjku }kjk la;qDr :i ls 390] 498,] o 406 vkbZ ih lh esa jkthukek is’k fd;kA ftls
iz’u ij fof/k vuqlkj rLnhd fd;k x;kA vfHk;qDr ds tfj;s jkthukek lsDlu 406
vkbZ0ih0lh0 ds vijk/k ls nks”keqDr okfNr fd;k x;kA lsD’ku 498 , vkbZ ih lh lekuh;
ugh gksus ls jkthukek mDr /kkjk esa rLnhd ugh fd;k x;kA vfHk;qDr ds fo:) lsDlu
498 , dk vkjksi ‘ks”k gSA
Lkky vfHk;kstu esa lk{; is’k djus gsrq volj pkgkA ikoyh okLrs lk{; vfHk;kstu esa
fnukad 3-3-18 dks is’k gksA
ftyk ,oa lS’ku U;k;ky;
t;iqj egkuxj.”
On perusal of above order, it is apparent that the
compromise was accepted by the trial Court, qua offence under Section
406 I.P.C. on the ground that the said offence is compoundable but
same was rejected, qua offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. for the
reason that the said offence is non-compoundable.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1047/2018]
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 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 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 impugned F.I.R.
No.173/2014 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City
(North) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 472, 323,
341, 354 (A) (B) (C) (D) and 420 I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all subsequent proceedings is
quashed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
ashok