Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2116 (RAJ)

Dinesh Mundra v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-10

KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA

body2005
Judgment K.K. Acharya, J.-By this criminal misc. petition under Section 482, CrPC the petitioner has prayed for quashing of criminal proceedings pending against him in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) Cum Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 1040/2001 arising out of FIR No. 108/1998 of Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur for offence under Section 498-A and 406, IPC. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties which has resulted into criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Jodhpur. He states that both the petitioner husband and Respondent No. 2 wife are living separately and decree of divorce by mutual consent was also passed by the learned Family Court, Jodhpur on 19.05.2000. He further states that both the parties have submitted compromise before the learned trial Court below and prayed that criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner be dropped. He states that the learned trial Court despite the fact that parties have entered into written compromise, has proceeded ahead in the criminal case pending against the petitioner. 4. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Honble Supreme Court in case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2203 (4) SCC 675. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has also submitted before me that decree of divorce by mutual consent has been granted by the Family Court and now both the parties are living separately and comprise has entered into between the parties. 6. I have considered the arguments made by learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case as well as the documents produced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. I have considered the arguments made by learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case as well as the documents produced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in case of B.S. Joshi & Ors., (Supra), wherein their Lordships while considering the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A, have observed as under:- “There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife of coerce her to her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.” 7. Taking into consideration the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondent, I am satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled their matrimonial dispute, inasmuch as the husband and wife have sought divorce decree by mutual consent and have started living separately with no grievance against each other. In this view of the matter and taking into account the judgment rendered by Honble Supreme Court in case of B.S. Joshi & Ors., (Supra). I find it to be a fit case where inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, CrPC should be exercised. 8. For the reasons as stated hereinabove, I allow this misc. petition and quash the proceedings against the accused petitioner pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) Crum Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 1040/2001, arising out of FIR No. 108/1998 of Police Station, Mahila Thana, Jodhpur.