SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Deepak Dave vs State & Anr on 6 March, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 688 / 2017

Deepak Dave S/o Sh. Shyam Narayan Dave, by caste
Brahmin R/o House No. 18, Sector No. 6, Hiran Magri,
Udaipur.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Garima Dave @ Garima Shrimali W/o Sh. Deepak Dave
D/o Arush Shrimali., R/o House No. 98, Navratan Complex,
Bedla Road, Udaipur.

—-Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S.Panwar, P.P., for the State
Mr. Sabir Khan, for the complainant.
_____________________________________________________
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
06/03/2017

Petitioner has laid this criminal misc. petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated 28.01.2017 and

the entire proceedings related to criminal case No.253/2016,

pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

No.2, Udaipur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits

that there was a trivial dispute between accused and the

complainant culminating into the aforesaid criminal case and
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-688/2017]

the criminal prosecution of the petitioner. It is also submitted

by learned counsel for the petitioner that parties have sorted

out their dispute and eventually compromise has been arrived

at between the rival parties. In view of compromise between

the parties, it is submitted by the learned counsel that now it

is not worthwhile to continue further proceedings in the

matter.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has very

candidly submitted that compromise has been arrived at and

now no dispute, as such, survives between the parties.

By relying on the compromise, learned trial Court has

compounded offence punishable under Section 406 IPC but

declined for the offence under Section 498-A IPC by citing

embargo under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

While, it is true that the offence attributed to the

petitioner, i.e. under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable

under Section 320 Cr.P.C, but then now a compromise has

been arrived at between the rival parties, this Court can very

well exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ex

debito justitiae. Reliance, in this behalf, can be profitably

made to a decision in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab Anr.

reported in JT 2012(9) SC 426. In this verdict, Supreme

Court has held that inherent powers of this Court under
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-688/2017]

Section 482 Cr.P.C. are independent of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

and in the event of compromise being arrived at, Court can

very well exercise its inherent powers to clog the proceedings

perpetually.

Taking into account the entire fact scenario, the

instant petition is allowed. The impugned order dated

28.01.2017 and the entire proceedings related to criminal

case No.253/2016, pending in the Court of Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur, are also hereby quashed

and set aside.

(P.K. LOHRA)J.

Bharti/34

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation