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
,[email protected]
(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)