Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2305 (RAJ)

Pratima Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

2009-11-06

K.S.RATHORE

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 108/2007 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.2, Ajmer for the offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, and to set aside the order dated 03.10.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.2, Ajmer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent-husband Sandeep Mathur and petitioner-wife Pratima Mathur have submitted a compromise before the trial Court, but the trial Court vide its order dated 03.10.2009 refused to attest the same on the ground that the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are non compoundable. 3. It is also submitted that the petitionerwife and the respondent-husband have mutually agreed to divorce and in this regard they also moved an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the District & Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi for the dissolution of their marriage by way of a decree of divorce by mutual consent and the same has been allowed by the Additional District Judge (North West)-02, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide judgment dated 01.08.2009 and decree of divorce has been passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 , wherein in para Nos. 14 and 15 Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under:- "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A 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 hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests or 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 would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests or 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 would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold 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." 5. Applying the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, here in the instant case the parties prayed for compounding the case as being matrimonial dispute under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and have entered into a compromise and the petitioner-wife does not want to continue with her complaint, in such circumstances, it would be a futile exercise to continue with the criminal proceedings as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others (supra), has held that "The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests or 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 would prevent women from settling earlier." 6. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 108/2007 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.2, Ajmer for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. The criminal misc. petition stands allowed in the terms as indicated herein above.Petition allowed. *******