HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 845 / 2018
Rohit Bansal And Anr
—-Petitioners
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishvesh Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP
For Complainant (s) : Mr Om Prakash Singhal
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Order
17/02/2018
Present petition has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings out of FIR No.65/2017
dated 15.03.2017 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana,
Jaipur(West).
Counsel for the petitioners has read the FIR and
submitted that respondent Vandana Gupta on 11.06.2015 as per
the Hindu Customs Act had performed marriage with petitioner-
Rohit Bansal.
Counsel for the parties have submitted that a
matrimonial dispute arose and hence, respondent No.2 had filed
the said impugned FIR for offences under Sections 406, 498-A and
120-B IPC against petitioner No.1-husband and petitioner No.2-
father of petitioner No.1.
It is contended that during pendency of the
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-845/2018]
proceedings better sence prevailed and parties affected
compromise.
Counsel for the complainant has submitted that
application regarding compromise(Annx.3) was filed before the
trial court. After verifying the application(Annx.3), on 02.02.2018
the trial court passed order Annx.4.
The order passed by the trial court reads as under:-
” vfHk;qDrx.k jksfgr fnus’k e; vf/koDrk mi-A
ifjokfn;k e; vf/koDrk mi-A mHk; i{kdkj us yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk
ls jkthukek U/s 498A, 406, 120B IPC esa is’k fd;kA
voyksdu fd;k x;kA mHk; i{k dh igpku djds muds vf/koDrk }kjk
dh xbZA jkthukek mHk; i{k dks lquk;k] lek;k x;k rks mHk;i{k us
jkthukek lqu ledj Lohdkj fd;k o fcuk Hk; o ncko esa gksuk dgkA
vr% /kkjk 406 vkbZihlh jkthukek ;ksX; gksus ls dsoy ek /kkjk 406
vkbZihlh esa jkthukek ckn tkap rLnhd fd;k x;kAÞ
It is further contended that after verification of the
compromise, trial Judge passed order(Annx.5) and compounded
the offence under Section 406 IPC, being compoundable. However,
the compromise was not accepted qua offence under Sections
498-A and 120-B IPC as same are not compoundable.
Relies upon the B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana,
reported in [(2003) 4 SCC 675] to urge that in matrimonial
dispute the proceedings qua offence not compoundable, can be
quashed by this court while exercising powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
It is further submitted that hour of the compromise is
the finest hour in the life of the parties, therefore, this court
should give due credence to the compromise affected between the
parties to promote amity, everlasting peace, harmony and
tranquility.
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-845/2018]
Mr. Om Prakash Singhal, counsel for the complainant,
as a senior member of bar has vouchsafed the factum of
compromise.
In view of the order passed by the trial court and on
the statement made by Mr. Om Prakash Singhal, present petition
is accepted and the impugned FIR along with all subsequent
proceedings is quashed, on the basis of compromise partially
accepted and attested by the trial court.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.
Heena
