HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5318/2018
Vishvajeet Mahendiya S/o Shri Ramkanwar B/c Mahendiya Ors.
—-Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Anr.
—-Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5325/2018
Vishwajeet Mahendiya S/o Shri Ramkanwar Mahendiya Ors.
—-Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Anr.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.C. Morya
Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Order
14/09/2018
Over-looking the defects pointed out by the Registry,
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5318/2018 and S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.5325/2018 are taken on board.
In both the petitions. a prayer has been made under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. that the proceedings arising out of impugned
FIR No.157/2011 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur
City(South), for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, be quashed in view of
compromise arrived between the parties.
Smt. Preetibala respondent No.2 complainant is present
in court. She has been identified by her counsel Mr. M.C. Morya.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5318/2018]
Smt. Preetibala, has stated that on 11.02.2008 she was
married with Vishvajeet Mahendiya petitioner No.1 as per Hindu
Customs and Rites.
During the pendency of the proceedings matrimonial
dispute has been amicably resolved.
It is submitted that parties have obtained a divorce
under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and thereafter,
petitioner No.1 has paid Rs.10 lakhs to respondent No.2. It is
further submitted that settlement/agreement was also produced
before a Division Bench of this court and a Division Bench of this
court on 02.05.2018 took note of the same in D.B. Civil Misc.
Appeal No. 3409/2017.
The compromise arrived between the parties was
presented before the trial court, the trial court accepted the
compromise for offence under Section 406 IPC on the ground that
the said offence is compoundable, but rejected the same qua
offence under Section 498-A IPC on the ground that the said
offence is non-compoundable.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and 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 in [(2003) 4 S.C.C. 675], the Apex Court has opined
that although offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is non-
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5318/2018]
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 this court 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, present in person and in view of law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi [supra], the present petitions
are accepted and the impugned F.I.R. bearing No.157/2011
registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City(South), for
offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all subsequent proceedings is,
hereby, quashed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
Heena/22-23
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
