Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rohit Bansal And Anr vs State Of Raj And Anr on 17 February, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 845 / 2018
Rohit Bansal And Anr
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishvesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP For Complainant (s) : Mr Om Prakash Singhal _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Order 17/02/2018 Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings out of FIR No.65/2017 dated 15.03.2017 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur(West).
Counsel for the petitioners has read the FIR and submitted that respondent Vandana Gupta on 11.06.2015 as per the Hindu Customs Act had performed marriage with petitioner- Rohit Bansal.
Counsel for the parties have submitted that a matrimonial dispute arose and hence, respondent No.2 had filed the said impugned FIR for offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC against petitioner No.1-husband and petitioner No.2- father of petitioner No.1.
It is contended that during pendency of the (2 of 3) [CRLMP-845/2018] proceedings better sence prevailed and parties affected compromise.
Counsel for the complainant has submitted that application regarding compromise(Annx.3) was filed before the trial court. After verifying the application(Annx.3), on 02.02.2018 the trial court passed order Annx.4.
The order passed by the trial court reads as under:-
" vfHk;qDrx.k jksfgr fnus'k e; vf/koDrk mi-A ifjokfn;k e; vf/koDrk mi-A mHk; i{kdkj us yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek U/s 498A, 406, 120B IPC esa is'k fd;kA voyksdu fd;k x;kA mHk; i{k dh igpku djds muds vf/koDrk }kjk dh xbZA jkthukek mHk; i{k dks lquk;k] le>k;k x;k rks mHk;i{k us jkthukek lqu le>dj Lohdkj fd;k o fcuk Hk; o ncko esa gksuk dgkA vr% /kkjk 406 vkbZihlh jkthukek ;ksX; gksus ls dsoy ek= /kkjk 406 vkbZihlh esa jkthukek ckn tkap rLnhd fd;k x;kAÞ It is further contended that after verification of the compromise, trial Judge passed order(Annx.5) and compounded the offence under Section 406 IPC, being compoundable. However, the compromise was not accepted qua offence under Sections 498-A and 120-B IPC as same are not compoundable.
Relies upon the B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in [(2003) 4 SCC 675] to urge that in matrimonial dispute the proceedings qua offence not compoundable, can be quashed by this court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
It is further submitted that hour of the compromise is the finest hour in the life of the parties, therefore, this court should give due credence to the compromise affected between the parties to promote amity, everlasting peace, harmony and tranquility.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-845/2018] Mr. Om Prakash Singhal, counsel for the complainant, as a senior member of bar has vouchsafed the factum of compromise.
In view of the order passed by the trial court and on the statement made by Mr. Om Prakash Singhal, present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed, on the basis of compromise partially accepted and attested by the trial court.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J. Heena