Mukesh Kumar vs The State of Rajasthan and Another

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant/non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sonu alias Sonia filed a complaint in the trial Court against the accused-petitioner, which was sent for investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ''CrPC'') and, after completion of investigation, a challan was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 498A and 406, IPC.

During the pendency of the case, the parties entered into a compromise and an application was filed on their behalf in the trial Court for attestation of compromise as well as for quashing of the proceedings pending in the trial Court; the trial Court rejected the application on the ground that both the offence are not compoundable. The certified copy of the application duly signed by both the parties and the impugned order passed by the trial Court have been placed on the record.

The learned Counsel for both the parties admit that the present case pertains to matrimonial dispute and in similar circumstances the Hon''ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2003 SCC (Cri.) 848, observed that in such case the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the CrPC does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of the CrPC. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the present case is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi''s case (Supra).

Consequently, this petition is allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 120/2004 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sujangarh (Churu), are quashed. A copy of this order may be sent to the trial Court.