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)