Rajasthan High Court
Mukesh Sharma @ Leeladhar S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 November, 2021
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5613/2021
Mukesh Sharma @ Leeladhar S/o Shri Laxminarayan Gawal,
Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Newariya, Tehsil Rashmi,
District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Smt. Poonam W/o Mukesh Sharma Gawal D/o Late Vishnu
Dutta, R/o Village Nimadi, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur
At Present R/o Rupangarh, P.s. Rupangarh, District Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Devanshu Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr.F.R.Meena, PP
Mr.Prabhansh Sharma for Mr.Amit
Daddich, for complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment / Order
16/11/2021
The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been
filed against the order dated 5.8.2021 passed by learned Civil
Judge & Judl. Magistrate, Kishangarh Distt. Ajmer in cr. Case no.
23/2015 (State Vs Mukesh Sharma) whereby the learned Judge
has partly allowed the application and acquitted the petitioner for
offence under Section 406 IPC but refused to compound the
offence under Section 498-A IPC on the basis of compromise
arrived at between the parties.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the
petitioner Mukesh and respondent No.2-complainant are husband
and wife. They have entered into a compromise in the spirit of Lok
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5613/2021]
Adalat. The copy of compromise has been produced before the
trial court but the trial court has refused to compound the offence
under Section 498-A IPC on the basis of compromise, therefore, it
is prayed that the order dated 5.8.2021 may be quashed to the
extent of refusing to compound the offence under Section 498-A
IPC and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner may be
quashed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Public Prosecutor for
the State and the counsel for the complainant, perused the record
as made available by them. It is well settled that the offences
which are not made compoundable under Section 320 of the IPC
but in which the dispute is purely inter-see between the parties
and does not effect the society, then even if the offences are not
compoundable, the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the
ground of compromise arrived at between the parties. He placed
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of
B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2003 (4) SCC
p.675; and Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr reported in JT 2012
(9) SC 426. The Hon'ble Apex Court has propounded in
B.S.Joshi's case that where the dispute is in between the spouses
only arising out of matrimonial strife and when in such cases the
dispute is amicably settled by the parties, then the same can be
quashed on the ground of compromise with a view to maintain the
relationship and harmony in between the parties. Here in this
case, the factum of compromise is not in dispute. It had been
produced before the learned trial court and herein this court too,
the counsel for the complainant has consented for quashment of
the proceedings as the parties have resolved the dispute amicably.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5613/2021]
In this view of the matter, and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court, the instant misc. petition is allowed in view of the
compromise entered in between the parties; this court while
exercising inherent powers, quashes the entire criminal
proceedings pending before the court of learned Civil Judge &
Judl. Magistrate, Kishangarh Distt. Ajmer in cr. Case no. 23/2015
(State Vs Mukesh Sharma) and all consequential proceedings.
The effect of quashing would be acquittal of the accused.
Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed. Stay petition is
also disposed of.
( FARJAND ALI),J
Sandeep-54/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
