HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 723/2019

Naveen Saharia S/o Shri Om Saharia, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
M.n.4-B, 14-15 Vigyan Nagar Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota City,
Raj.

—-Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

2. Smt. Sonia W/o Shri Naveer Saharia, D/o Shri Krashan Murari
Sharma B/c Brahaman, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Makan
No.433, Transport Nagar, Annatpura Kota City, Raj.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Liyakat Ali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma
For the State : Mrs. Meenakshi Pareek, P.P.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

/ Order

25/02/2019
Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.350/2014 registered at

Women Police Station Kota City for offences punishable under Sections

498-A and 406 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.

Petitioner – Naveen Saharia and the respondent No.2 – Smt.

Sonia @ Sonika are present in person before this Court. They have been

identified by their respective Counsels.

Smt. Sonia @ Sonika, complainant/respondent No.2

present in person, has stated that on 19.01.2012 as per Hindu Customs

Rites, she was married with petitioner – Naveen Saharia. During
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-723/2019]

subsistence of marriage, differences arose between the parties. She was

compelled to lodge the present F.I.R.

The learned counsel appearing for the parties have

vouchsafed the factum of compromise and have submitted that the

dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties.

Smt. Sonia @ Sonika, complainant/respondent No.2 present

in person, has stated before this Court that a divorce petition under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been filed and the

same is pending before the Family Court at Jodhpur and is coming up

for final motion on 11.03.2019. She has further stated that the

accused/petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to her and a

demand draft to this effect has already placed on the record of the

Family Court at Jodhpur. Lastly, she has submitted that she no longer

intends to pursue the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioner, therefore,

the impugned F.I.R., along with all subsequent proceedings be quashed.

The petitioner and the complainant have drawn attention of

this Court towards the application (Annexure-2) filed before the trial

Court for composition of offence.

Counsel appearing for the parties have submitted that the

trial Court on 02.05.2018 accepted the compromise, qua offence

punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. by recording acquittal of the

accused, but said compromise was rejected, qua offence punishable

under Section 498-A I.P.C.

The order dated 02.05.2018 passed by the trial Court reads

as under :-

“2-5-18 ifj- lksfu;k o vfHk- uohu us /kkjk 498,] 406 vkbZihlh esa jktukek is’k
fd;kA /kkjk 498, ukdkfcy jkthukek gSA /kkjk 406 vkbZihlh esa Qfj- ds vf/k- lqJh egtch
‘ks[k us rFkk vfHk- dks Jherh jfrUnj dkSj ,M- us f’kuk[r fd;kA jkthukes dh bckjr
i{kdkjku dks v{kj ‘k% i+dj lqukbZ o lekbZ xbZ ftls i{kdkjku us lgh gksuk Lohdkj
fd;kA jkthukek /kkjk 406 vkbZihlh esa rLnhd fd;kA eqy- dks t;sZ jkthukek 406 vkbZihlh
esa nks”keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA jkthukek ‘kkfey ikoyh jgsA
,lMh@
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-723/2019]

vfr- flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ,oa
U;kf;d eftLVªsV Øe3
¼mRrj½ dksVk”

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

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 impugned F.I.R.

No.350/2014 registered at Women Police Station Kota City for offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code is

quashed, along with all subsequent proceedings.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
ashok

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)