HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 413/2018

1. Shokat Ali S/o Shri Natthi Khan B/c Musalman, R/o 27/1,
Teli Pada, Tajganj, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra,
Up.
2. Yunus Ali S/o Shri Shokat Ali B/c Musalman, R/o 27/1,
Teli Pada, Tajganj, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra,
Up.
3. Yusuf Ali S/o Shri Shokat Ali B/c Musalman, R/o 27/1, Teli
Pada, Tajganj, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra, Up.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Manisha D/o Shri Rajjak Khan, W/o Shri Yusuf Ali B/c Teli
Musalman, R/o 27/1, Teli Pada, Tajganj, Police Station
Tajganj, District Agra, Up.
3. Anisha D/o Shri Rajjak Khan, R/o Village Ikran, Police
Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur, Raj.
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP for State

Ms. Sunita Vashistha, for respondents
No.2 and 3

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Order

11/09/2018

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

praying that the proceedings arising out of FIR No.216/09,

registered at Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur for

offences under Sections 143, 498A, 406 and 323 IPC, be quashed

as during subsistence of proceedings, better sense has prevailed
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-413/2018]

among the parties and they have started cohabiting as husband

and wife.

Manisha, respondent No.2, is present in court. She has

stated that she and Anisha, respondent No.3, both are sisters

were married with two brothers, namely Yusuf Ali and Yunus Ali.

Manisha has stated that she is living happily with her husband

Yusuf Ali, whereas Anisha has obtained divorce and has performed

remarriage.

Salawat Khan, brother of respondents No.2 and 3, is also

present in court. He has also vouchsafed the factum of

compromise.

Ms. Sunita Vashistha, learned counsel for respondents No.2

and 3, has identified Manisha and Salawat Khan who are present

in court.

Counsel for the parties have jointly stated that as on today,

trial is pending.

Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, has

submitted that Manisha and Anisha appeared before the trial

court. They filed a joint application for accepting the compromise

and the trial court vide order dated 11.08.2016 attested the

compromise for offence under Section 406 IPC being

compoundable offence, but rejected the same for offence under

Section 498A IPC on the ground that the said offence is non-

compoundable.

Order dated 11.08.2016 is reproduced below for ready

reference:-

“11-8-16 vkt ;g jkthukek eqLrxhlk vuh”kk] euh”kk ,ao eqyfteku
‘kkSdr vyh o ;wuql vyh] ;wlqQ dh vksj ls /kkjk 498 A,
406 Hkk-na-la- esa is’k fd;k x;kA /kkjk 498 A Hkk-na-la- esa
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-413/2018]

jkthukek dh izkFkZuk vLohdkj dj /kkjk 406 Hkk-na-la- esa
jkthukek izLrqr djus dh vuqefr i`Fkd ls nh x;hA
jkthukek mHk; i{k dks /kkjk 406 Hkk-na-la- ds lEcU/k esa
idj lquk;k lek;k x;kA mHk; i{k us lqu le dj
lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA eqLrxhlk vuh”kk] euh”kk] dh
igpku Jh fouksn iapksyh ,sM0 us ,ao vfHk;qDrx.k ;wlwQ]
‘kkSdr vyh] ;wuql vyh dh igpku Jh ,y-ds-feJk ,sM0 us
dhA jkthukek varxZr /kkjk 406 Hkk-na-la- esa rLnhd fd;k
tkrk gSA ‘kkfey ikoyh jgsA
Sd/-

U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke oxZ
la[;k4 HkjriqjA”

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon B.S.

Joshi Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, to

contend that in matrimonial matters, to bring families at peace,

this court while invoking inherent powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. can quash the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings

even for non-compoundable offences.

Taking into account the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the

matrimonial dispute has been resolved by the parties by way of

compromise, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR

alongwith all subsequent proceedings is quashed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

Govind/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)