Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dharmendra Singh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 4 October, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
Crlmp2330/2016
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER
IN
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.2330/2016
(With Stay Appl. No.2372/2016)
1. Dharmendra Singh S/o Shri Triloki Prasad
2. Triloki Prasad S/o Shri Shiv Singh
3.Smt. Geeta W/o Triloki Prasad
All By caste Jat, Resident of 69 Roj Villa, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
Accused-Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through P.P.
2. Balveer Singh S/o Late Shri Atar Singh
3. Poonam Kumari D/o Balveer Singh
Both By Caste Jat Resident of Nagla Beech Police Station
Malpura Agra. Presently Resident of Govind Nagar Madarpur
Road, Police Station Mathura Gate Bharatpur.
Complainant/Respondent
Date of Order ::: 04.10.2016
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Mr. Karan Pal Singh, counsel for accused-petitioners
Mr. A.D. Khan, Public Prosecutor, for the State
Ms. Poonam Kumar, complainant-respondent no.3, present in
person
####
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 05.04.2016 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class No.1, Bharatpur, in Case No.70/2015 arising out of F.I.R. No.11/2015, Police Station Mahila Thana, Bharatpur, by which learned Magistrate refused to attest the compromise between the parties so far it relates to offence under Section 498-A IPC, however, attested the same so far it relates to offence under Sections 323 and 406 IPC.
It is contended that accused-petitioner happens to be husband of complainant-respondent no.3 and accused- petitioner no.2 and 3 are her father-in-law and mother-in- law. On account of some matrimonial dispute, the complainant-respondent no.3 filed F.I.R. No.11/2015 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bharatpur, for offence under Crlmp2330/2016 // 2 // Sectiosn 323, 406 and 498-A IPC and after investigation, the police filed charge-sheet and Criminal Case No.70/2015 was registered in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class No.1, Bharatpur, and the accused-petitioners are facing trial in that case.
It is contended that during trial, the parties have entered into compromise and they have amicably settled their dispute and now there remains no dispute between them and the complainant-respondent no.3 now does not want any further action in the present matter against accused- petitioners, therefore, on 05.04.2016 both the parties submitted joint compromise application before the trial court for attesting the compromise and permitting them to compound the offence under Sections 323, 406 and 498-A IPC. Learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 05.04.2016, attested the compromise so far it relates to offence under Sections 323 and 406 IPC but declined to attest the same so far it relates to offence under Section 498A of the IPC, holding that the said offence is not compoundable.
Learned counsel for accused-petitioners, 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-petitioners under Section 498A of the IPC is compoundable and the criminal proceedings are liable 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 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 Crlmp2330/2016 // 3 // 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- petitioners and complainant-respondent amicably settled their disputes and arrived at compromise and agreed to end the criminal proceedings in the case. The complainant- respondent no.3 is present in the court and she has been identified by Mr. Karan Pal Singh, learned counsel for accused-petitioners. Her presence has been recorded.
Though, the learned Magistrate, vide its order dated 05.04.2016, partly allowed the compromise application filed by both the parties and attested the compromise so far the offence under Sections 323 and 406 IPC is concerned, 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.
In the result, the criminal misc. petition is Crlmp2330/2016 // 4 // allowed. The criminal proceedings in the Criminal Case No.70/2015, pending before the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, No.1, Bharatpur, arising out of the F.I.R. No.11/2015, Police Station Mahila Thana, Bharatpur, are dropped. Consequently, the F.I.R. No.11/2015, Police Station Mahila Thana, Bharatpur, is also quashed.
This also disposes of stay application.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//35