Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1383 (RAJ)

Pankaj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2012-05-28

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The present miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10/2009 pending against the petitioners in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara and instituted at the instance of the respondent No. 2 Smt. Priyanka Soni for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406, I.P.C. 2. The First Information Report in this case was filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. On the basis of the said F.I.R, the charge-sheet was filed and the trial is going on in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara. During pendency of the trial, the parties arrived at a compromise and a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu marriage Act has been passed by the competent Court on 19.5.2012 and accordingly an application was filed on behalf of the complainant (respondent No. 2) and the petitioners before the trial Court for terminating the proceedings on the basis of the compromise. The said application was filed on 5.4.2012. The trial Court, vide order dated 16.4.2012 allowed the parties to compund the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, but rejected the said application so far as compounding of the offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code is concerned; the present miscellaneous petition for quashing of the proceedings against the accused-petitioners. 3. Mr. N.K. Rastogi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S.S. Shaktawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2, have submitted that the dispute arose between the husband and wife owing to matrimonial differences and thus the complainant-respondent No. 2 was led to file the first information report against the petitioners. Thereafter wiser counsel have prevailed and the parties to the litigation have decided to settle the dispute by way of compromise and accordingly the compromise-petition was filed in the trial Court which has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. Seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings going on against the accused, the present miscellaneous petition has been submitted. Learned counsel appearing before this Court have submitted that once the matrimonial disputes have been settled and the parties have arrived at a compromise then continuance of the criminal proceedings is likely to unsettle the compromise arrived at between the parties. 4. Seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings going on against the accused, the present miscellaneous petition has been submitted. Learned counsel appearing before this Court have submitted that once the matrimonial disputes have been settled and the parties have arrived at a compromise then continuance of the criminal proceedings is likely to unsettle the compromise arrived at between the parties. It has further been submitted that the ends of justice also require that the matrimonial disputes, if settled by the spouses then the criminal litigation should not be continued. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstance and looking to the fact that the spouses to the marriage have now decided to settle their disputes and a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been passed by the competent Court on 19.5.2012, this Court is of the opinion that the possibility of accused-petitioners being convicted in the case is absolutely remote. Accordingly, when once the matrimonial disputes have been settled by a mutual compromise then no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 6. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10/2009 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara going on against the accused-petitioners, are hereby quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.Petition allowed. *******