SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jwalant Yogi And Anr vs State Of Raj And Anr on 1 March, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2510/2018

1. Jwalant Yogi S/o Yogendra Kumar Sharma B/c Brahamin, R/o
242, Sector 18, Faridabad, Haryana.

2. Yogendra Kumar Sharma S/o R.p. Sharma B/c Brahmin, R/o
242/18, Faridabad, Tehsil And District Faridabad, Haryana.

—-Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

2. Smt. Ragini Sharma W/o Jwalant Yogi, D/o Sh. Giri Raj
Sharma, R/o 24, Rav Ji Ka Baag, Kartarpura, Jaipur, Raj.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Snehdeep Singh Khyaliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Sharma
For the State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, P.P.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

/ Order

01/03/2019
Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.149/2013 registered at

Women Police Station Jaipur Metropolitan (South) for offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 313 and 120-B of Indian Penal

Code.

In the present case, quashing of impugned F.I.R., along with

all subsequent proceedings has been sought on the basis of compromise

affected between the parties.

Smt. Ragini Sharma, complainant/respondent No.2 is

present in person before this Court. She has been identified by her

Counsel – Mr. Lalit Sharma.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2510/2018]

Smt. Ragini Sharma, complainant/respondent No.2 present

in person, has stated that on 21.11.2011, as per Hindu Customs

Rites, she was married with petitioner No.1 – Jwalant Yogi. She has

further stated that no issue was born out of the wedlock.

During subsistence of marriage, differences arose between

the parties. She was compelled to lodge the present F.I.R.

Smt. Ragini Sharma, complainant/respondent No.2 present

in person, has stated as per settlement-deed/compromise (Annexure-

2), the petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay her Rs.20,00,000/-. It is

further stated that she has already received Rs.10,00,000/- and

remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid at the time of grant

of decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by

way of mutual consent.

It may be noted here that the parties vide Annexure-3 had

presented the compromise before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate,

Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The said Court accepted the compromise,

vide order dated 24.04.2018, qua offence punishable under Section 406

I.P.C., but rejected the same, qua offence punishable under Section

498-A I.P.C. on the ground that the said offence is non-compoundable.

The factum of compromise has also been vouchsafed by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Counsel appearing for the respective parties have jointly

prayed that since the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved,

the criminal case pending between the parties arising out of F.I.R.

lodged by respondent No.2 be quashed so that the parties can pursue

their life and move ahead.

I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties

and have 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
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2510/2018]

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 as [(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 F.I.R. No.149/2013

registered at Women Police Station Jaipur Metropolitan (South) for

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 313 and 120-B of

Indian Penal Code, is quashed, along with all subsequent proceedings.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
ashok

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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