Manoj Chiraniya And Ors @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

Smt. Jyotsana Verma respondent No.2 complainant is present in court along with her counsel Mr. Ajay Singh Tanwar.

On the joint request made by counsel for the parties, application (bearing inward No.24078/2018) is allowed and with the consent of the parties, S.B.

Criminal Misc. Petition No.708/2016 is taken on board.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.708/2016

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.14/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur(East)

for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.

Counsel for the parties have submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved and a

compromise has been affected between the parties.

Smt. Jyotsana Verma complainant respondent No.2 aggrieved wife is present in court. She has been identified by her counsel Mr. Ajay Singh Tanwar

who has caused appearance on behalf of Mr. Ashwin Garg.

Counsel for the parties have vouchsafed the factum of compromise.

 Smt. Jyotsana Verma complainant respondent No.2. has submitted that a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marraige Act has been filed in the

family court at Jaipur and same is coming up for hearing before Family Court No.2 on 05.09.2018.

 Smt. Jyotsana Verma complainant respondent No.2, has submitted that she has accepted no amount towards Istridhan permanent alimony on the

ground that her husband Manoj Chirania and his family shall forego right to seek custody of the children.

Mr. Madhav Mitra, counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioners have also foregone their right to visit the children and they shall pay Rs.8,000/-

per month for maintenance of the children with increase at rate of 10% per annum.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and 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 this court invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Considering the fact that both the parties have resolved their matrimonial dispute and the joint prayer made by the parties, present in person and in

view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi [supra], the present petition is accepted and the impugned F.I.R. bearing

No.14/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur(East) Jaipur, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC along with all

subsequent proceedings is, hereby, quashed.