Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahendra Mohan And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 September, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
1
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3814/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR.
ORDER
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3814/2016
WITH
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 3913/2016
1. Mahendra Mohan S/o. Shri Mohan Lal,
2. Smt. Santra Devi W/o. Shri Mohan Lal,
Both are by caste Balai, resident of Village Bhopatpura, Police
Station Reengus, District Sikar(Rajasthan).
Accused/Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor.
Respondent
2. Smt. Suman Bunkar W/o Shri Mahendra Mohan by caste
Balai, resident of Village Bhopatpura, Police Station Reengus,
District Sikar, at present House No. 12, Balaji Vihar, Scheme
No. 15, Murlipura, Jaipur(Rajasthan).
Complainant/Respondent.
DATE OF ORDER : 17.09.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Mr. Suresh Dhenwal, for the petitioners.
Mr. R.R. Baisla, Public Prosecutor, for Respondent No. 1-
State.
BY THE COURT:
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-petitioners for setting aside the order dated 02.07.2016 (Annexure-2) passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reengus, District Sikar(for short 'the trial court'), in Criminal Case No.136/2014 titled State Vs. Mahendra Mohan & Another, by which the 2 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3814/2016 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.
It is contended that Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are married according to customs of Hindu Religion. Due to some misunderstanding between them, Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 192/2013 at Police Station Reengus, District Sikar for offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the petitioners and family members. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. During, trial, a compromise took place between the parties which was submitted before the trial court on 02.07.2016 along with application. The trial court vide impugned order dated 02.07.2016, partly allowed the application by compounding the offence 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 - 3
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3814/2016 (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.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. 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 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 4 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3814/2016 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 petitioners and complainant-respondent No. 2-wife 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 02.07.2016, partly allowed the compromise application filed by both the parties under Section 320 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 498-A 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. 5
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3814/2016 In the result, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in the Criminal Case No.136/2014 titled State Vs. Mahendra Mohan & Another, pending before the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reengus, District Sikar, arising out of F.I.R. No.192/2013, Police Station Reengus, District Sikar are dropped. Consequently, F.I.R. No.192/2013, Police Station Reengus, District Sikar, is also quashed.
This also disposes off stay application.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J.
Manoj, S.NO.60.