Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2157 (RAJ)

Snehal Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

2012-11-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of proceedings of the Cr.Case No.14/03 pending in the court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) cum Judl. Magistrate No.2, Bhilwara arising out of FIR No.107/2002 registered at Mahila Police Station, Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 filed the aforementioned FIR against the petitioners on 7.9.2002. The Police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners. While the proceedings of the criminal case were going on, the parties arrived at a compromise and accordingly, an application under Section 133 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by both the spouses i.e. the petitioner Snehal Joshi and Smt.Tripti Joshi in the Court of the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (SD), Surat on 5.3.2005. The terms germane for the instant misc. petition and as agreed in the mutual divorce application are reproduced hereinbelow: "(10) The criminal proceedings under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are filed by the opponent is to be withdrawn by the opponent, and the maintenance order passed in Case No.359 of 2002 is also not to be enforced or executed. (11) All the disputes between the parties are amicably settled and all the proceedings, either civil or criminal, are to be withdrawn by the parties ad not to be proceeded further." 3. However, despite the grant of the decree of divorce by mutual consent, the respondent No.2 did not take steps to have the criminal proceedings terminated as agreed by both the parties in the joint divorce application. On this, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings going on against them in the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) cum Judl. Magistrate No.2, Bhilwara. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Mohd.Shamim & Ors. v. Nahid Begum (Smt.) & Anr., reported in (2005)3 SCC 302 and submits that once after entering into a settlement and taking benefit of the decree for mutual divorce even if one of the parties to the settlement resiles from the compromise, then the High Court can exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings. v. Nahid Begum (Smt.) & Anr., reported in (2005)3 SCC 302 and submits that once after entering into a settlement and taking benefit of the decree for mutual divorce even if one of the parties to the settlement resiles from the compromise, then the High Court can exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the proceedings of the criminal case be quashed while exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 complainant opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and contends that the petitioner Snehal Joshi did not comply with all the conditions of the mutual divorce application and therefore, the complainant did not take steps to have the criminal proceedings culminated by way of the compromise. He however is not in a position to state that the complainant made any such submission or raised any such objection in the Court of learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (SD), Surat, where the application for mutual consent was filed and was allowed. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd.Shamim (supra), this Court is of the opinion that once the respondent wife agreed to the terms of mutual compromise in the divorce application and received the sum of money (totallig to Rs. 7 lacs) as agreed in mutual settlement and thereafter, the competent court acting on the compromise application accepted the divorce, she cannot be permitted to resile from all the terms agreed in the compromise application. An unequivocal settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the wife has undertaken that the criminal case under Section 498A IPC, which has been filed by her shall be withdrawn and that all the proceedings either civil or criminal are to be withdrawn by the parties and not to be proceeded further. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case going on against the petitioners in the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) cum Judl. Magistrate No.2, Bhilwara. 7. Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of Cr.Case No.14/03 pending in the court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) cum Judl. Magistrate No.2, Bhilwara. 7. Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of Cr.Case No.14/03 pending in the court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) cum Judl. Magistrate No.2, Bhilwara arising out of FIR No.107/2002 registered at Mahila Police Station, Bhilwara.The stay petition is also disposed of.Petition allowed. *******