Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1910 (RAJ)

Sushil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2018-09-12

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying therein that the proceedings arising out of impugned F.I.R. No.225/2014 registered at Police Station Mukundgarh District Jhunjhunu for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, be quashed. 2. In the present case, quashing of impugned F.I.R., along with all subsequent proceedings has been sought on the basis of compromise affected between the parties. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the divorce petition filed by the respondent No.2- Smt. Pramila, decree of divorce was granted and aggrieved against the same, husband had filed D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4771/2017 in this Court. 4. A Division Bench of this Court on 07.05.2018 in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4771/2017 pending between the parties had passed the following order :- "By this appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 11th August, 2017, whereby, an application filed by the non-appellant-wife under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") was allowed by the Family Court, Jhunjhunu. The amount of Rs. 5 lac has been awarded towards permanent alimony and is opposed as it is without a prayer in the divorce petition. The parties, present in person, were persuaded and they have settled the disputes inter se between them on the following terms: 1. The appellant would not press the appeal for challenge to the order passed under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, therefore, decree for divorce is confirmed. 2. The appellant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lac towards permanent alimony. It is in settlement of all the disputes inter se between the parties, however, with the prayer to allow payment of permanent alimony in five instalments. The aforesaid has been agreed by the parties and, accordingly, even no dispute remains regarding payment of permanent alimony. 3. The payment of permanent alimony would be made by the appellant in five monthly instalments of Rs. 1 lac per month. The first instalment of Rs. 1 lac would be paid on 15th June, 2018 and, thereupon, remaining to be paid on 15th day of every month. 4. The non-appellant would support the appellant for quashing the proceedings under Section 498A & 406 IPC in terms of settlement. Accordingly, the appellant would file a criminal misc. 1 lac per month. The first instalment of Rs. 1 lac would be paid on 15th June, 2018 and, thereupon, remaining to be paid on 15th day of every month. 4. The non-appellant would support the appellant for quashing the proceedings under Section 498A & 406 IPC in terms of settlement. Accordingly, the appellant would file a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for dropping of the criminal proceedings in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 . 5. The non-appellant would not raise any other claim either for herself or for her son. 6. If any party commits default in making compliance of this order, either of the parties would be at liberty to file an application for initiation of proceedings against the defaulter. The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid." 5. Today, Smt. Pramila, complainant/respondent No.2 is present in person before this Court. She has been identified by her Counsel Mr. Rohit Saini. 6. Smt. Pramila, complainant/respondent No.2 present in person, has stated that out of Rs. 5,00,000/-, she has already received Rs. 3,00,000/- from the petitioner/ husband. 7. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has handed over two Demand Drafts amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- each to complainant/ respondent No.2 - Smt. Pramila. 8. Smt. Pramila, complainant/respondent No.2 present in person, has prayed that in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the criminal proceedings be dropped against the petitioner. 9. Counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband has contended that the custody of the child will remain with him. 10. Smt. Pramila, complainant/respondent No.2 present in person, has stated that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. Lastly, Smt. Pramila has submitted that she no longer intend to pursue the present F.I.R. and the same be quashed. 11. Counsel appearing for the respective parties have jointly prayed that since the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved, the criminal cases pending between the parties as well as impugned F.I.R. be quashed, so that the parties can pursue their life and move ahead. 12. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the contents of the instant petition. 13. 12. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the contents of the instant petition. 13. It has been often held by the Courts that hour of the compromise is the finest hour between the parties and the Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 can quash the proceedings, even qua non-compoundable offences. 14. Furthermore, in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Harayana, reported as [ (2003) 4 SCC 675 ] , the Apex Court has opined that although offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is non compoundable, but in cases of matrimonial dispute to bring families at peace, if the parties arrive at compromise, then proceedings, qua offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. can be quashed by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 15. Considering the fact that both the parties have resolved their matrimonial dispute and the joint prayer made by the parties and in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi [supra], the present petition is allowed. The impugned F.I.R. No.225/2014 registered at Police Station Mukundgarh District Jhunjhunu for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, is quashed, along with all subsequent proceedings.