Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 616 (RAJ)

Gopal Amarlal Vyas v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-22

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R.Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, CrPC., the petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings against him arising out of the FIR No. 113/2000, Police Station, Mahila Thana, Jodhpur. 2. By order dated 07.02.2006, a notice for final disposal was ordered to be issued. The notices have been served. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the FIR lodged by complainant-Respondent No. 2 Bhavika dated 21.06.2000 as also the statements of the complainant and her parents made in Sessions Case No. 31/2002 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jodhpur. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after lodging the FIR, the parties have compromised the matter which is evident, from the statements made by PW. 1 Radha Kishan, the father of the complainant, PW. 2 Bhavika, the complainant-Respondent No. 2 and PW. 3 Smt. Vimla, the mother of the complainant in Sessions Case No. 31/2002 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jodhpur, wherein the trial against two persons, viz. Amar Lal and Smt. Mohini, the parents of the petitioner, was pending. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that by the order dated 05.01.2004, the parents of the petitioner were acquitted of the offences under Sections 12-B, 498-A, 406, 420, 307/120-B, IPC. Learned Counsel further submits that complainant Respondent No. 2 Bhavika herself filed a petition under Section 482, CrPC, before this Court challenging the order dated 28.01.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jodhpur, whereby the Counsel Mr. Ram Gopal Purohit appearing for petitioner made a statement that the parties have compromised the matter outside the Court. Learned Counsel further submits that since the parties have compromised the matter and co-accused have already been acquitted of the offences and since the complainant and her parents did not make any statement against them, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings to continue. Learned Counsel has relied on the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Akhilesh Singh, AIR 2005 SC 268 ; State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 and B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 (4) SCC 675 . 5. Learned Counsel has relied on the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Akhilesh Singh, AIR 2005 SC 268 ; State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 and B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 (4) SCC 675 . 5. Complainant-Respondent No. 2 Bhavika made a statement before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jodhpur on 012.2004, wherein she categorically stated that after the marriage, she lived for sometime at Mumbai with her husband and parents-in-law and thereafter at Taiwan. During the period of her stay at Mumbai and Taiwan with the petitioner and her parents-in-law, neither the petitioner nor her parents-in-law made any demand of dowry. She categorically stated that she had never been harassed or subjected to cruelty by the petitioner on her parents-in-law. Similar is the statements of PW. 1 Radha Kishan and his wife PW. 3 Smt. Vimla, who are the parents of complainant-respondent Bhavika. 6. There being no other evidence to establish that the petitioner ever demanded dowry or harassed the complainant and there can be no better evidence then that of the complainant and her parents in this regard. Since, the complainant and her parents did not support their case as instituted at the time of filing the FIR, in my view, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue, more particularly when admittedly the parties have compromised the matter and wish to live amicably. 7. In Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Akhilesh Singh, 2005 (1) SCC 149 , the Honble Supreme Court, the respondent therein was implicated in the case on the basis of the alleged conspiracy between himself and the original accused Dr. Sanjay Singh, who was discharged by an order passed by the Sessions Judge and that order attained finality. Under those circumstances, the High Court held that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case against the respondent and the Honble Apex Court held that the power exercised by the High Court did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 8. Under those circumstances, the High Court held that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case against the respondent and the Honble Apex Court held that the power exercised by the High Court did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 8. In State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 , the Honble Supreme Court held that the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unlimited, whereunder in the interests of justice, the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 9. In B.S. Joshis case (Supra), 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. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. In that case, the matrimonial dispute was settled between the parties and the complainant and her witnesses did not support the imputations. It may be either for the reason that the complainant resolved the dispute between her and her husband and other family members and again started living with them and is living happily on her own or married somewhere else. 10. In the instance case, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the complainant has been dissolved in accordance with Hindu Law by a competent Court of law and a decree of dissolution of marriage dated 23.08.2005 has been passed by the Judge, Family Court Jodhpur. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner to continue in the Court. 11. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, arising out of FIR No. 113/2000, Police Station, Mahila Thana, Jodhpur, as also the first information report are hereby quashed.