Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Yashoda Devi vs State & Anr on 19 September, 2016
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRI. MISC. (PET.)(CRLMP) NO. 2627 of 2016
Smt. Yashoda Devi W/o Shri Ram Chandra Bhati,
resident of Jalori Gate, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Kavita D/o Pusa Ram ji, resident of Milkman
Colony, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
...Respondents
Date of Order :: September 19, 2016
HON'BLE MR. P.K. LOHRA, J.
Mr. Bhunesh Chhangani, for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr. Avinash Bhati, for respondent-compainant.
ORDER
------------
BY THE COURT:
The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the accused for seeking quashment of impugned order dated 30th of August 2016 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT) Act, Jodhpur Metropolitan in (for short, 'learned Court below') in Case No.70/2014 to the extent it has declined to verify the compromise between petitioner and the respondent complainant for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and has also craved for quashing the entire proceedings of the criminal case.
[2]The bare necessary facts, for the purpose of this petition are that complainant filed FIR against the petitioner attributing offence under Section 498A, 406, 323 and 392 IPC. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet against accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC before the learned Court below, 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 Court below by invoking sub-sec.(2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Learned Court below, after considering the compromise, compounded offence under 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 by accused for the prayers aforementioned.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties 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 Court below perpetually on the strength of compromise being arrived at between both the parties.
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 [3] exercising inherent powers, can act ex debitio 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 Vs. 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 want to live peacefully then even in those cases where offences involved are non-compoundable, Court can exercise inherent powers for quashing criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed, impugned order dated 30th of August, 2016 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT) Act, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Case No.70/2014 to the extent of rejecting application for compromise is set aside and taking into consideration compromise between the parties, in exercise of inherent powers, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case qua petitioner are annulled.
(P.K. LOHRA) J.
bharti/