Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh & Anr vs State on 12 September, 2016
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRIMINAL MISC.(PET.)(CRLMP) NO. 2477 of 2016
1. Rakesh Kandara s/o Shri Maadhulal Kandara, by
caste Kandara, r/o Nehru colony, front of defence
lab, Baggi Khana, Residency road, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.
2. Smt. Manju d/o Shri Raju Chauhan w/o Rakesh
Kandara, aged 26 years, by caste Valmiki, r/o B/7
Nehru colony, Baggi Khana, Residency road,
Ratanada, Jodhpur.
....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Rajasthan.
...Respondent
Date of Order :: 12.09.2016
HON'BLE MR. P.K. LOHRA, J.
Ms.Ranjana Singh Mertia with accused-petitioner No.1-
Mr.Rakesh Kandara, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Haider Agha with complainant, petitioner No.2-
Smt.Manju, present in person.
Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
------------
BY THE COURT :
The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is jointly filed by the accused and the [2] complainant for annulment of entire proceedings in criminal case No.91/2014 ( State Vs.Rakesh Kandara') pending before Additional Judicial magistrate No.2, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur.
The bare necessary facts, for the purpose of this petition, are that petitioner No.2-complainant filed FIR against the petitioner No.1-husband attributing offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. After investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against accused- petitioner No.1 for the aforesaid offences before the trial Court. During continuance of the trial, both the parties inspired by concept of Lok Adalat, sorted out their dispute and entered into compromise. A written compromise was submitted before the learned trial Court by invoking sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court, after considering the compromise, compounded offence Section 406 IPC but declined to compound offence under Section 498A IPC as the same is not compoundable within the four corners of Section 320 Cr.P.C. It is in that background, the petition is laid jointly by both accused and the complainant for quashing the entire proceedings.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor and upon examining the matter in its entirety, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case wherein inherent powers can be exercised by this Court for clogging the entire criminal proceedings before the learned trial Court perceptually on the strength of compromise being arrived at between both the parties.
[3]There remains no quarrel that inherent powers of this Court for quashing criminal proceedings are different and distinct from the power of a criminal Court of compounding the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. In appropriate cases, this Court, while exercising inherent powers, can act ex dibito justitiae i.e. for doing real and substantial justice for which alone the Courts exist. That apart, Supreme Court in its authoritative pronouncement in Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303 has also held that where the parties have sorted out their dispute, more particularly, in matrimonial disputes and wants to live peacefully then even in cases where offences involved are non-compoundable, Court can exercise inherent powers for quashing criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in criminal case No.91/2014 pending before Additional Judicial Magistrate are hereby quashed and set aside.
( P.K. LOHRA ),J.
Bharti/124