SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mayank Jha vs State Of Raj And Anr on 3 April, 2018


S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1474/2018

Mayank Jha S/o Shri Harendra Nath Jha B/c Brahmin, Aged About 38
Years, R/o G-587, Govindpuram, Gaziyabad, Up.
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Neha Sharma D/o Shri Sandesh Sharma B/c Brahmin, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o C-215, Talvandi, Kota, District Kota, Raj.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Sharma, for
Ms. Rekha Arora
For the State : Mr. Prakash Thrkuria, Public Prosecutor


/ Order


Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in a case arising out of criminal

case No.54/2011 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No.3

(North), Kota.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends

that the petitioner was married with the respondent No.2.

Mr. Sandesh Sharma, father of the respondent No.2 – Neha

Sharma, is present in person before this Court. He has stated that the

marriage was performed on 17.06.2009 at Gaziabad. He has further

stated that upon complaint filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., F.I.R.

was registered against husband and his relatives. He stated that Neha

Sharma after affecting compromise has left for the United States of

America (U.S.A.).

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1474/2018]

Mr. Govind Sharma, appearing for Ms. Rekha Arora, ld.

counsel for the respondent No.2 – Neha Sharma, has submitted that

due to intervention of the Lok Adalat, memorandum of understanding

compromise was arrived at between the parties and as per same, Neha

Sharma was to be paid Rs.20,00,000/-. Counsel has further submitted

that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid in two installments.

Mr. Sandesh Sharma, father of respondent No.2/ aggrieved-

wife has stated that the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- has been received as

per settlement deed arrived at the behest of the District Legal Services

Authority, Kota. True copy of settlement deed attested by Mr. Govind

Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Sandesh Sharma, father of Neha Sharma, is

taken on record and is made part of the paper book.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

submitted that the compromise was accepted by the trial Court, qua

offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. vide order dated

27.02.2018 (annexure-2). However, the trial Court has rejected the

compromise so far offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. is

concerned on the ground that the same is non-compoundable.

The learned counsels appearing for the respective parties

have jointly prayed that since the matrimonial dispute has been

amicably resolved, the criminal cases pending between the parties as

well as impugned F.I.R. be quashed so that the parties can pursue their

life and move ahead.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties

and perused the contents of the instant petitions.

It has been often held by the Courts that hour of the

compromise is the finest hour between the parties and the Court while

exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash

the proceedings, even qua non-compoundable offences.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1474/2018]

Furthermore, in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of

Harayana, reported in [(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 criminal case No.54/2011

pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No.3, (North), Kota, along

with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.



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