Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2134 (RAJ)

Vimla Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-11

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Issue notice only to the State for final disposal, as there is no necessity to issue notice to the non-petitioner No. 2. Mr. Ashok Upadhyaya, Public Prosecutor for the State accepts notice. With the consent of the parties, the miscellaneous petition is finally heard. 2. By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 09.05.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar, district Churu (for short, "the trial Court hereinafter), by which the trial Court refused to record compromise between the parties and declined to drop the proceedings pending against non-petitioner No. 2 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC on the ground that these offences are not compoundable. 3. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on an FIR filed by the petitioner on 11.02.2002, after investigation, the police filed challan against non-petitioner No. 2 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC in the trial Court. Thereafter, on 09.05.2005, an application duly signed by both the parties, was submitted before the trial Court stating therein that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and there is re-union of matrimonial relation between the petitioner-complainant and non-petitioner, the petitioner is ready to live with the non-petitioner and settle matrimonial home and, therefore, they may be permitted to compound the offences. The trial Court declined to accept the application on the ground that the offences under Sections 498A and 406, IPC are not compoundable. Hence this miscellaneous petition. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. 5. In B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 SCC (Cri.) 848, the Honble Supreme Court held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320, CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing the FIR. The Apex Court further observed that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320, CrPC does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482, CrPC. The Apex Court further observed that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320, CrPC does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482, CrPC. It was further held that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from setting earlier and that is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the IPC. 6. In Surendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2005 (1) RCC 453, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the basic object of matrimonial law is to facilitate happy and harmonious matrimonial life between the spouses and if they approach the Court, permission sought for to compound the offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC pursuant upon the compromise filed by the parties should be accorded by this Court under Section 482, CrPC. 7. In the instant case, the complainant-petitioner herself has filed the instant criminal miscellaneous petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to accord permission to compound the offences, and in the alternative it has been prayed that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner-complainant against her husband i.e. non-petitioner No. 2 Dev Raj, be quashed so that the petitioner and her husband can live together and settle their matrimonial home and to facilitate happy and harmonious matrimonial life between the spouses. 8. Since, the petitioner-complainant herself does not want to prosecute her husband in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose would be served to allow the criminal proceedings to go on for the reason that neither the complainant-petitioner nor her witnesses are going to support the complaint filed by her and, therefore, the trial would be a mere formality. In the circumstances, therefore, it is not expedient in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution launched by the complainant-petitioner to continue because it would be an abuse of the process of the Court and even if the proceedings are allowed to go on, the ultimate end is bound to be dismissal of the complaint or the prosecution case. Therefore, keeping in view the decision of the Honble Supreme Court In B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Therefore, keeping in view the decision of the Honble Supreme Court In B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (Supra), in the interest of justice, it is considered just and proper to quash the criminal proceedings by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. 9. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.05.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar, district Churu, is set-aside and further proceedings in Criminal case No. 237/2002, State vs. Devraj pending before the trial Court are hereby quashed.