Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2236 (RAJ)

Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-24

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “The Code”) is directed against the order dated 20.02.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Begun, district Chittrogarh (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 90/2004, by which the trial Court declined to allow the parties to compound the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. 2. The facts of the case are that Petitioner No. 3 Smt. Rukman lodged a complaint against Petitioners No. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. After investigation, the police filed challan against Petitioners No. 1 and 2. Ultimately, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, which was produced before the trial Court. The trial Court, vide impugned order dated 20.02.2005 refused to permit the parties to compound the offence on the ground that the offence under Section, 498-A, IPC is not compoundable. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 4. 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, of the Code 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 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. 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. 5. In Surendra Singh & Ors. 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. 5. In Surendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2005 (1) RCC 453, a coordinate 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 of the Code and directed the trial Court to accord permission to compound the offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC in terms of the compromise filed by the parties. 6. In the instant case, the petitioners have filed the instant criminal miscellaneous petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to accord permission to compound the offence, and in the alternative it has been prayed that the proceedings initiated by Petitioner No.3 Smt. Rukman against her husband Petitioner No. 1 Kanhaiya Lal and brother-in-law Petitioner No. 2 Om Prakash be quashed so that the Petitioner No. 3 and her husband Petitioner No.1 Kanhaiya Lal can live together and settle their matrimonial home and to facilitate happy and harmonious matrimonial life between the spouses, as also to maintain cordial relations with her brother-in-law Petitioner No. 2 Om Prakash. 7. Since, the complainant-petitioner No. 3 Smt. Rukman herself does not want to prosecute her husband and brother-in-law 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. 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. 8. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.02.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Begun, district Chittorgarh, in Criminal Case No. 90/2004, State vs. Kanhaiya Lal & Anr., is hereby set aside and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90/2004 pending before the trial Court are hereby quashed. * * * * *