Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1360 (RAJ)

Vijay Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan

2016-09-16

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2016
ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-petitioners seeking quashment of proceedings in Case No. 175/2013 pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Metropolitan Magistrate No. 15, Metropolitan City, Jaipur arising out of FIR No. 49/2013 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (East), Jaipur City, Jaipur for offences under Sections 498 and 406 IPC. 2. Mr. M.F. Baig, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties have compromised the matter out of the Court. In terms of the compromise, it is agreed that the petitioner No. 1, Vijay Kumar Soni shall pay to Respondent No. 2 Smt. Alka @ Versha a sum of Rs. 11,35,000/- as permanent alimony and Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all cases against the petitioner No. 1 and get the aforesaid case compromised. Compromise deed was filed before the trial court, which vide order dated 15.03.2016, while attesting the compromise deed in respect of offence under Section 406 IPC, kept the trial pending in respect of offence under Section 498-A IPC, which is not compoundable. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and argued that in view of the ratio of these judgments, the offence against the accused-petitioners under Section 498A of the IPC is compoundable and the criminal proceedings are liable to be dropped. It is contended that out of amount of Rs. 11,35,000/-, amount of Rs. 6,35,000/- was paid to Respondent No. 2 at the time of execution of compromise deed. Petitioner No. 1, present in the Court, has handed over today a demand draft of Rs. 4,50,000/- to Respondent No. 2, present in the Court and undertakes to pay remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- to Respondent No. 2 at the time of grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent in the proceedings pending before the Family Court, Jaipur. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, on instruction of Respondent No. 2, acknowledges the fact that amount of Rs. 6,35,000/- has been received by her at the time of execution of compromise before the trial court and further demand draft of Rs. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, on instruction of Respondent No. 2, acknowledges the fact that amount of Rs. 6,35,000/- has been received by her at the time of execution of compromise before the trial court and further demand draft of Rs. 4,50,000/- has been received by her today in the Court and she shall accordingly take steps to get the decree of divorce by mutual consent in the proceedings before the Family Court. It is submitted that Respondent No. 2 would have no objection for quashment of proceedings for offences under Section 498A IPC pending before the trial court. 4. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 as well as Respondent No. 2-complainant have personally appeared before the court and they have been identified by their respective counsel and their presence is recorded. 5. Heard learned counsel or the parties and perused the material on record. 6. The question that fell for determination before the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2003) 4 SCC 675 , was about the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court therein observed that in matrimonial disputes of this kind have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, not only against the husband but his other family members also. The Supreme Court held 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, and 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 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, which is not the object of the provision. 7. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests 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, which is not the object of the provision. 7. Indisputably, in the present case the accused-petitioner No. 1-husband and complainant-respondent No. 2-wife amicably settled their disputes and arrived at compromise and agreed to end the criminal proceedings in the case. 8. Though, the learned Magistrate, vide its order dated 15.03.2016, partly allowed the compromise application filed by both the parties under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C., and acquitted the accused-petitioners from the charge of offence under Section 406 IPC but proceeding for offence under Section 498A of the IPC is still continuing against the accused-petitioners. When the whole matter has been compounded between the parties, there is no purpose to continue the criminal proceedings between them. 9. In the result, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in the Case No. 175/2013, pending before the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Metropolitan Magistrate No. 15, Metropolitan City, Jaipur, arising out of F.I.R. No. 49/2013, Police Station Mahila Thana (East), Jaipur City, Jaipur, are dropped. Consequently, the F.I.R. No. 49/2013, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (East), Jaipur City, Jaipur, is also quashed. 10. This also disposes off stay application.