HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 458/2020

Aabid Hussain S/o Anwar Hussain, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Behind Tempo Police Stand, New Jatawaas, Maderna Colony, P.s.
Mahamandir, District Jodhpur.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State, Through P.P.

2. Smt. Sana Parveen W/o Aabid Hussain D/o Mohammed
Yusuf, R/o Karbala Colony, Udaymandir, District Jodhpur.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kuldeep Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mukhtiyar Khan,P.P.

Mr.Sikandar Khan.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Judgment / Order

07/02/2020
The instant misc. petition has been filed seeking quashing of

the proceedings of the Cr. Case No.142/2016 pending in the Court

of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District arising out of FIR

No.75/2016 registered at the Woman Police Station (East), Jodhpur

Metropolitan for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the

I.P.C. on the basis of the compromise.

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

her husband.

Both the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that

the parties have decided to terminate their ties by mutual consent

(Downloaded on 10/02/2020 at 08:47:33 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-458/2020]

and thus, the proceedins going on in the trial court should be

quashed.

They submit that the respondent filed an application before the

court below for termination of the proceedings through a mutual

compromise. The trial Court vide order dated 9.12.2019 has

accepted the said application for the offence under Section 406 of

the I.P.C. and has compounded the proceedings to that extent only

to the extent of co-accused Husna Bano, who was also acquitted of

the charge under Section 498A I.P.C. in absence of evidence.

So far as the petitioner is concerned, the trial Court kept the

proceedings open and did not accept the compromise on the

premise that the petitioner had absconded. However, in my opinion,

a mutual compromise arrived at between the parties to a matrimonial

dispute should nto be rejected only on the ground that the accused

is unavailable to face the proceedings because the right to

compromise is the prerogative of the complainant.

In this view of the matter and looking to the guidelines laid

down 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 the proceedings going on against the petitioner in the

learned trial Court to be continued cannot be said to be expedient in

the interest of justice. If the proceedings are allowed to continue, it

(Downloaded on 10/02/2020 at 08:47:33 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-458/2020]

may result into the compromise being unsettled. Though the

petitioner was absconding during the trial, but looking to the

compromise arrived at between the complainant and the petitioner,

this Court feels that ends of justice would be served in quashing the

proceedings pending against the petitioner in the court below.

Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings

of the Cr. Case No.142/2016 pending in the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate, Jodhpur District arising out of FIR No.75/2016 registered

at the Woman Police Station (East), Jodhpur Metropolitan for the

offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the I.P.C. are hereby

quashed. Stay petition is also disposed of.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

/tarun goyal/ 84

(Downloaded on 10/02/2020 at 08:47:33 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)