Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 154 (RAJ)

Rajesh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-18

K.C.SHARMA

body2005
Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties and p rused the impugned order. 2. The marriage of petitioner No. 1 was solem ized with non-petitioner No. 2 on 02.03.2002. After few months of their marriage, the non-petition r wife lodged a report against petiti er husban and his parents at Mahila Thana (North) Jaipur, upo which the police after investigati submitte charge-sheet and the trial Court framed charges for offence under Sections 323 and 498-A, IPC against the petitioners. 3. It is stated that during pendency of trial, the parties amicably settled all heir disputes and the husband and wife have decided to live separately. To set at rest all the disputes, husband and w filed a petition for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court Court diThe petitioners and non-petitioner No 2 also filed joint applicatiofAnnexure-1 before the trial Jaipur praying therein that since parties have amicably settled their disputes and t complainant w does not want to further prosecute the matter the offence maydbe ordered to be compounded and he 4. The petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, CrPC. for permitting to compound the offence which is not compoundable in view of the provisions of Section 320, CrPC. In the present case, all the dispute between husband and wife stands resolv d as is disputes amicably, they have filed a filed a divorce petition under Section 13-B of th Marriages Ac seeking mutual divorce and have entered into a compr mise. Having settled evident from he fact that they havejoint application before the trial C urt for compoundi g offence 323 and 498-A, IP . As state above, the trial Court permitted the parties to compouHdindu offence under Section 323, IPC, but eclined to accept the prayer for compounding offence under Section 498-A, IPC. The question that falls for determination of this Court is whether in mat imonial disputes this nd the offence under Section 498-A, IPC which is not compoundabl under the provisio s of Section 320, CrPC and to drop the criminal proceedings pending against th petitioners. The question that falls for determination of this Court is whether in mat imonial disputes this nd the offence under Section 498-A, IPC which is not compoundabl under the provisio s of Section 320, CrPC and to drop the criminal proceedings pending against th petitioners. While dealing with a case of identical nature, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675 , considere the ambit of the inherent powers of High to g ant permissio to com rt should invoke inherent 227 of the Constitution of India to quash Court under Section 482, CrPC read with Articles 226 an jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC so as the criminal proceedings arising out of the offence under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC. While considering the question, their Lordships relied upon the following observations in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambharijirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 (1) SCC 692 : "While exercising inherent power of quashing proceedings under Section 482, CrPC, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings". 5. Having noticed the above observations, their Lordships were of the view that special features in such matrimonial are evident. It becomes the duty o the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 6. Then their Lordships considered the object o introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section498-A, IPC and observed as under: "There is no doubt th t the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code w s to prevent torture to a woman by her husban or by of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husban and his harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands f dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interest of w men and against the object for whic this provision was added. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husban and his harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands f dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interest of w men and against the object for whic this provision was added. There is every likelihood that no -exercise of inherent power to quas the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would preve t womenform settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code". who Ultimately, their Lordships held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect powers under Section 482 of the Code. mut 7. Thus, in the light of the observations of the Apex Court quoted above and considering speci l features of the pr sent case viz. (i) the husban a d wife have amicably resolved all their l divorce and (iii) d divo c it would not b withdraw the proceedings, I feel thatpetition u der Sectioan application before the trial Court to disp tes (ii) both have fil the pa ti s have joi tly fil exp dient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue further. It is a fit case where inherent p wers of this Court should be exercised. If the Court declines to exercise inherent pow r, it would n t meet the ends of justiceand would prevent the non-petitioner wife from settling earlier.13-B of Hindu Marriages Act seeking 8. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The application dated 15.05.2004 filed by the parties is accepted and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in the trial Court are quashed.