Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2747 (RAJ)

Mamata Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2005-10-20

JITENDRA RAY GOYAL

body2005
Judgment Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.-A joint petition under Section 482, CrPC has been filed by Smt. Mamata Devi, Mahesh Kumar, Devaki Nandan, Shri Hanuman Prasad and Smt. Panchi Devi for quashing the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 187/2003 pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur arising out of the FIR No. 226/2003 registered at Police Station, Chakasu for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC, on the ground that they have entered into a compromise. 2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that Complainant-petitioner No. 1 Smt. Mamata Devi filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the complaint to the Police Station Chakasu and the police registered FIR No. 226/2003 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC and after investigation police submitted challan. After filing of the challan, charges were framed and evidence was commenced to be recorded. 3. In the meantime, a compromise application jointly singed by the petitioners was filed in the said Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to the effect that they have entered into a amicable compromise and no dispute remains between them now, hence, the complainant wife does not want to continue the criminal proceedings. But the learned Magistrate declined to attest the compromise. Hence, this misc. petition. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioners contended that in a matrimonial dispute parties have entered into a compromise amicably and Smt. Mamata Devi is happily leading her married life with her husband Mahesh Kumar. It is also contended that a joint compromise application was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur who declined to attest the compromise on the ground that the offence is not compoundable. It is also contended that in these matters, the High Court has got inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings to meet the ends of justice. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment Harpit Singh Anand vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2004 (10) SCC 505 wherein the Apex Court quashed all the proceedings in between both the parties in matrimonial cases including FIR on the basis of compromise. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC are not compoundable, therefore, learned trial Court rightly declined to compound the case. 6. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC are not compoundable, therefore, learned trial Court rightly declined to compound the case. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. It is not disputed that the Complainant-petitioner No. 1 Smt. Mamata Devi (wife) filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur against her husband and his other family members and the learned Magistrate sent it to Police Station, Chakasu and the police registered the case under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC and submitted the challan. The learned Magistrate framed the charges. But thereafter the parties entered into a compromise and filed a compromise application in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur for attestation of the same. The learned Magistrate declined to attest the compromise on the ground that offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC are not compoundable. 7. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (II) 2003 SLT 689 = (II) 2003 CCR 57 (SC) = 2003 (4) SCC 675 observed in Para 14 as under: There is not 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 to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counter-productive 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. 8. From the above guidelines rendered by the Honble Supreme Court, it is clear that hypertechnical view would act against the interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 8. From the above guidelines rendered by the Honble Supreme Court, it is clear that hypertechnical view would act against the interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. Further, in the instant case, when the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled by the parties, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued, then it would act against the interest of the complainant and would not serve the purpose for which this provision was added. 9. Hence, in the interest of justice, I think it proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur. 10. Consequently, this misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 187/2003 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur are hereby quashed.