Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Lokesh Singh Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 September, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
1
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3230/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR.
ORDER
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3230/2016
WITH
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 3346/2016
Lokesh Singh Rathore son of Late Shri Gopal Singh Rathore,
aged about 26 years, by caste Rajpoot resident of Plot No.
489, Gali No. 8, Rishi Galav Nagar, Delhi Bye Pass Jaipur At
present resident of 89-A, Ridhi Sidhi Nagar-8, Link Road,
Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur(Raj.).
Accused/Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.
2. Smt. Chand Kanwar @ Chanrakala wife of Shri Lokesh Singh
Rathore Daughter of Shri Gulab Singh Rajawat, aged about 24
years, by Caste Rajpoot resident of Survey No. E-281, Makan
No. 5/405, Teela No. 5, Jawahar Nagar, Kacchi Basti, Infront
of Ek Tangi Ki Tanki, Jaipur(Raj.).
Non-Petitioners.
DATE OF ORDER : 17.09.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Mr. Anil Upman, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.R. Baisla, Public Prosecutor, for Respondent No. 1-
State.
Mr. Pawan Saini, for the Respondent No. 2-complainant.
BY THE COURT:
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-petitioner Lokesh Singh Rathore for setting aside the order dated 20.06.2016 (Annexure-2) passed by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(for short 'the trial court'), in Criminal Case 2 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3230/2016 No.736/2011 titled State Vs. Lokesh Singh, by which the learned trial court refused to grant permission for compounding the offence under Section 498A IPC, however, ordered for compounding the offence under Section 406 IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, i.e. husband and wife.
It is contended that the respondent no. 2-wife lodged FIR No. 165/2011 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur (East), Jaipur for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. After usual investigation, police filed charge sheet against accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC in the court concerned. The trial court framed charges for the said offences against accused-petitioner. During pendency of the aforesaid criminal trial, parties entered into compromise and a compromise deed was prepared, according to which, parties were agreed to submit the compromise in all proceedings between the parties. The compromise was submitted before the trial court on 20.06.2016 along-with application with request to drop the criminal proceedings by compounding the offence. The learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 20.06.2016, partly allowed the application by compounding the offence 3 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3230/2016 under Section 406 IPC, however, refused to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC. Hence this criminal miscellaneous petition.
Learned counsel for accused-petitioner, in support of the case, has relied on 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-petitioner under Section 498A of the IPC is compoundable and the criminal proceedings are liable to be dropped.
Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent no. 2-wife submits that the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court may be ordered to be compromised in view of the above relied judgments, according to which offence under Section 498A IPC is compoundable and thus the proceedings against the accused-petitioner be ordered to be dropped.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
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 4 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3230/2016 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.
Indisputably, in the present case the accused- petitioner-husband and complainant-respondent-wife 5 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3230/2016 amicably settled their disputes and arrived at compromise and agreed to end the criminal proceedings in the case.
Though, the learned trial court, vide its order dated 20.06.2016, partly allowed the compromise application filed by both the parties under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., and acquitted the accused-petitioner from the charge of offence under Section 406 IPC, but proceeding for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is still continuing against the accused-petitioner. When the whole matter has been compounded between the parties, there is no purpose to continue the criminal proceedings between them.
In the result, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in the Criminal Case No.736/2011 titled State Vs. Lokesh Singh, pending before the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, arising out of the F.I.R. No.165/2011, Police Station Mahila Thana (East), Jaipur, are dropped. Consequently, the F.I.R. No.165/2011, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (East), Jaipur, is also quashed. This also disposes off stay application.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J.
Manoj, S.NO.47.