Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Omprakash Moolchandani And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 4 August, 2016
S.B. CRLMP No. 2879/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
BENCH JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2879/2016
Om Prakash Moolchandani & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of order: 4th August, 2016.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Mr. J.K. Moolchandani, for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Dhakad, PP for the State.
Mr. Shovit Jhajharia, for the respondent no.2.
The present petitioner has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.235/2012, registered at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur East, for the offences under Sections 420, 120B and 384 IPC.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the compromise has been arrived between the accused and the complainant/respondent no.2 and the said compromise has already been verified by the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipiur. In the FIR, the complainant has stated that she was living in the neighbourhood of the accused. The accused took her photographs and extended threat that the said photographs will be uploaded on the internet. It was averred in the FIR that the complainant was compelled to perform marriage with the petitioner no.1 Om Prakash S.B. CRLMP No. 2879/2016 2 Moolchandani.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably. The learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-2 to state that the parties have already obtained divorce under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, by way of mutual consent.
The learned Public Prosecutor has very fairly stated that the compromise was presented before the trial court and the trial court accepted the same qua offence under Section 420 IPC, as the same is compoundable. The learned trial court has rejected the compromise qua the offence under Sections 384 and 120-B IPC, by holding that the said offences are non-compoundable.
The learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the dispute essentially is matrimonial in nature and since marriage has been dissolved by way of mutual consent, the impugned FIR be quashed as it is impediment in the way of parties to pursue their life and move ahead.
The complainant/respondent no.2 is present in the court. She has been identified by her counsel. The learned counsel for the complainant on instructions from the complainant/respondent no.2 also prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed. The learned counsel for the parties have relied upon B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Harayana, reported in [(2003) 4 S.C.C. 675] to contend that although offences under Section 120-B and 384 I.P.C. are non-compoundable, but in cases of matrimonial S.B. CRLMP No. 2879/2016 3 dispute, if the parties arrive at compromise, then FIR in respect of non- compoundable offences can be quashed, by the High Court by invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A further reliance has been placed on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, considering that the compromise was duly verified by the trial court and has been partially accepted, and the parties have already obtained divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, this Court is of the view that the continuation of proceedings arising out of impugned FIR will serve no useful purpose.
Consequently, the present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR No.235/2012, registered at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur East, for the offences under Sections 420, 120B and 384 IPC along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA), J.
Mak/-
117