HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 115/2019
Banalal @ Banesingh B/c Gurjar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Dhapawan Kalan Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2. Mamta Devi W/o Banesingh @ Banalal, D/o Harbhajan
B/c Gurjar, R/o Dhapawan Kalan At Present Khuntala, Ps
Kolwa, District Dausa.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP
Mr. Om Prakash Sharma for
respondent no.2
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
-/Order/-
21/01/2019
The present petition has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.26/2016 registered at Police
Station Kolwa, Dausa for the offences under Sections 323, 498A,
and 406 IPC.
In the present case, quashing of FIR has been sought
on the basis of compromise.
Mamta Devi, respondent no.2 is present in the court.
She has been identified by her counsel Mr. Om Prakash Sharma.
Mr. Banalal @ Banesingh petitioner is also present in the court and
he has been identified by his counsel Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma.
Mamta Devi, respondent no.2 has stated that on
23.4.1997 she was married with petitioner as per Hindu customs
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-115/2019]
and rites. It is submitted that due to difference of opinion, she was
compelled to lodge the impugned FIR.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted
that due to intervention of respectables, elders of the family and
common relations, the matrimonial dispute has been amicably
resolved.
Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the
parties have decided to part gracefully without any monetary
consideration.
Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the
parties have presented application under Section 13B of Hindu
Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent
and the same is coming for final motion after six months.
Learned counsel for the parties have vouchsafed the
factum of compromise and has also drawn attention of this Court
to the joint application Annexure-2 filed by the parties before the
court of Magistrate. Learned counsel for the parties have
submitted that vide order dated 14.12.2018, the trial court
accepted the compromise qua offence under Section 406 IPC as
the said offence is compoundable. It is further contended that the
trial court rejected the compromise qua offence under Section
498A IPC on the ground that the said offence is non-
compoundable.
Mamta Devi, complainant/respondent no.2 has prayed
that the impugned FIR be quashed as she no longer intends to
pursue the same.
The learned counsel for the parties have jointly relied
upon B.S. Joshi Ors. vs. State of Haryana Anr., 2003
Cri.L.J. 2028, to contend that this Court while exercising
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-115/2019]
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in furtherance of interest of
justice in matrimonial dispute may bring families at peace by
quashing FIR.
On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the
parties, in view of the judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra),
relied by the parties, the present petition is accepted and
impugned FIR along with all its subsequent proceedings is
quashed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)