Rohit Prajapat vs State of Raj. and Another

Hon''ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 26th July, 2012 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial court'') in Cr. Case No. 969/10, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application to discharge the petitioner on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. In the instant case the petitioner is the husband of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2-complainant had filed the criminal complaint against the petitioner before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate u/s 498-A and 406 of IPC. After the investigation directed by the Magistrate u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Police Station, Beawar City registered the case as FIR No. 203/10. The challan was also filed by the Investigating Officer u/s 406 and 498-A IPC before the concerned court and the court after framing the charge against the petitioner has proceeded with the trial of the case. On 26.7.12, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 filed the joint application before the trial court for compounding the offences u/s 406 and 498-A of IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between them. The trial court permitted the parties to compound the offence u/s 406 of IPC, however did not permit to compound the offence u/s 498-A of IPC vide the impugned order dated 26.7.12 and hence the present petition has been filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent No. 2 have jointly submitted that the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the court and no purpose would be served to continue the criminal proceedings filed against the petitioner by the respondent No. 2. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, in case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, and the judgments of this court in the case of Bablu & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. 2009 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 829, Anil Puri & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. 2007 (2) R.C.C. 648 and in the case of Babu Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. 2009 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1220, the learned counsel, the learned counsels have submitted that the petition be allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner be quashed.

In the instant case the trial court has not permitted the parties to compound the offence u/s 498-A of the IPC on the ground that the said offence is not compoundable. It is true that the trial court would not have the jurisdiction to permit the parties to compound the non-compoundable offence and, therefore, there is no illegality committed by the trial court by passing the impugned order. So far as the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (supra) as under :-

There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of the Code.

The ratio of the said decision has also been followed by this court in number of cases as relied upon by the learned counsels for the parties. The matter being matrimonial matter, and the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 having arrived at a compromise which was also confirmed by them by remaining present in the court, this is the fit case to allow the parties to compound the offence u/s 498-A of IPC and drop the criminal proceedings against the petitioner pending before the trial court. In that view of the matter, the criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 969/10) pending against the petitioner before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar are quashed. The petition stands allowed accordingly.