Aditya Kumar Yadav @APPELLANT@Hash Poonam Devi

Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner/husband praying therein that the case/F.I.R. No.1/2016

registered at Police Station Phulera District Jaipur Rural for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. be quashed on the basis of

compromise.

Respondent â€" Poonam Devi on 25.11.2015, as per Hindu Customs & Rites, was married with the petitioner â€" Aditya Kumar Yadav. During

subsistence of marriage, differences arose and respondent was compelled to lodge impugned F.I.R. bearing No.1/2016 at Police Station Phulera

District Jaipur Rural for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C.

It is contended by Mr. Rajinder Yadav, ld. counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent â€" Poonam Devi that on the intervention of the relatives

and respectables, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and an application was presented before the trial Court praying that the

proceedings be dropped against the petitioner on basis of the compromise. Counsel further contends that the trial Court, vide its impugned order dated

12.07.2017, accepted the compromise, qua offence under Section 406 I.P.C. but said compromise was rejected, qua offence under Section 498-A

I.P.C.

The order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the trial Court reads as under :-

“, ih vks mifLFkrA eqyfte vkfnR; e; vf/koDrk mifLFkrA ifjokfn;k e; vf/koDrk mi0A ifjokfn;k }kjk eqyfte ds lkFk /kkjk 406 vkbZ ih lh esa jkthukek

djus dh vuqefr gsrq izkFkZuk i= is’k djus ij ifjokfn;k dks eqyfte ds lkFk jkthukek djus dh vuqefr i`Fkd ls nh xbZA i{kdkjksa ds e/; /kkjk 406 vkbZ ih

lh esa jkthukek i`Fkd ls rLnhd fd;k x;kA eqyfte vkfnR; dks /kkjk 406 vkbZ ih lh ds vijk/k esa vkjksi ls tfj;s jkthukek nks""keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA eqyfte ij

vc dsoy 498, vkbZ ih lh vijk/k dk vkjksi 'ks""k gSA eqyfte dk vkfnR;ukFk dh vksj ls vf/koDrk Jh vt; flag us odkyrukek is’k fd;kA 'kkfey jgsA lk{;

vfHk;kstu esa ih MCY;w&2 Bkdqj flag o ih MCY;w 3 enuyky dh ftjg o ihMCY;w 4 Jhefr deys’k ds c;ku ys[kc) fd;s x;sA xokg la[;k&6 ls 9 dks

tfj;s leu ryc fd;k tkdj i=koyh okLrs ,d vfHk;kstu esa fnukad 6-10-17 dks is’k gksA

,lMh@&

flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ,ao U;kf;d eftLVªsV lkaHkj ysd t;iqj ftyk.â€​

The present petition was filed before this Court seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. on the basis of compromise, qua offence under Section 498-A

I.P.C.

This Court on 29.05.2018 had passed the following order :-

“In the present petition, quashing of FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, has been prayed.

Let at first instance, upon identification, statements of the petitioner (s) and the complainant be recorded by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial).

To await statement recorded by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), list on July 2, 2018.â€​

In pursuance of the said order, statements of the petitioner and the complainant/aggrieved-wife have been recorded by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial)

of this Court.

The statement of Smt. Poonam Devi, complainant reads as under :-

“eSa iwue nsoh ifRu Jh vkfnR; dqekj] mez o""kZ 31] tkfr tkVo] fuoklh& cq)ukFk uxj] ckykth jksM+] Qqysjk] ftyk t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½A

“kiFk iqoZd c;ku djrh gwW fd eSaus fnukad 02@01@2016 dks ,d ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 u0 1@2016 iqfyl Fkkuk Qqysjk esa izkFkhZ vkfnR; dqekj ;kno ds

f[kykQ ntZ djk;h FkhA ejs k vkSj izkFkhZ vkfnR; dqekj ;kno dk rykd gks pqdk gSA vkSj ge nksuksa ds chp jkthukek gks pqdk gSA eS vc mDr izdj.k

esa vkfnR; dqekj ;kno ds f[kykQ dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrh gWwA jkthukesa ds vk/kkj ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vUrxZr /kkjk 406 vkbZ0ih0lh0 esa

jkthukek rLnhd fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k /kkjk 498&, vkbZ0ih0lh0 esa jkthukek rLnhd djus gsrw ;kfpdk is’k dh gSA ;kfpdk

jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij fuLrkfjr dh tkosaA eq>s vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA

uksV%& xokg dk c;ku esjs funsZ’ku esa mlds dgs vuqlkj Vad.kdrkZ }kjk dEI;wVj ij Vafdr fd;k x;k] ftls xokg dks ik;k x;k rks mlus

mDr dFkuksa dks lqu o le> dj lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA

 vkj0vks0,.M ,0lh0 fMIVh jftLVªkj ¼U;kf;d½.â€​

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ aggrieved-wife has also vouchsafed the factum of compromise. Counsel has further prayed since

the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved, the criminal cases pending between the parties as well as impugned F.I.R. be quashed, so that the

parties can pursue their life and move ahead.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the ld. counsel appearing for the complainant and have perused the contents of the

instant petition.

It has been often held by the Courts that hour of the compromise is the finest hour between the parties and the Court while exercising its inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings, even qua non-compoundable offences.

Furthermore, in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Harayana, reported in [(2003) 4 S.C.C. 675], the Apex Court has opined that although offence

under Section 498-A I.P.C. is noncompoundable, but in cases of matrimonial dispute to bring families at peace, if the parties arrive at compromise,

then proceedings, qua offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. can be quashed by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Considering the fact that both the parties have resolved their matrimonial dispute and in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S.

Joshi [supra], the present petition is allowed.

The impugned F.I.R. No.1/2016 registered at Police Station Phulera District Jaipur Rural for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406

I.P.C. along with all subsequent proceedings is, hereby, quashed.