Pukhraj Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40664)
2024 Latest Caselaw 8705 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pukhraj Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40664) on 1 October, 2024

[2024:RJ-JD:40664]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
              S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6673/2024
1.      Pukhraj Singh S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 31
        Years, R/o Jamnapuri Colony, Murlipura Scheme, Akhepur,
        Jaipur.
2.      Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Sanwarmal, Aged About 54 Years,
        R/o Jamnapuri Colony, Murlipura Scheme, Akhepur,
        Jaipur.
3.      Babu Lal S/o Ganpat Ji, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
        Ganeshpuri, Near Galta Gate, Jaipur City.
                                                    ----Petitioners
                              Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.      Smt. Urmila W/o Shri Pukhraj Singh, R/o Lohar Basti,
        Baba Ramdev Marg, Masuriya, Jodhpur.
                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Muhammad Akbar.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. N.K. Gurjar, AAG assisted by Mr.
                                VS Rajpurohit, PP.
                                Mr. Praveen Bhati, for R/2.


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order 01/10/2024

1. Quashing of FIR No.0065/2023 dated 15.03.2023 registered

at Police Station Mahila Thana Jodhpur City West, and all other

consequential proceedings emanating therefrom for offences

under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, is sought herein on the basis

of compromise arrived between the parties.

2. Dispute between the parties arose from matrimonial discord

between petitioner No.1 (husband) and complainant/Respondent

no.2 (wife). Pursuant to the mutual settlement parties are now in

the process of taking steps to dissolve their marriage mutually by

filing a petition before the competent civil court.

3. On a Court query qua the genuineness of the compromise,

learned counsel for the petitioners relies on an order of the

learned trial court dated 02.09.2024 and submits that based on

the same very compromise, proceedings under Section 406 of IPC

were dropped against the petitioners. However, as the offence i.e.

[2024:RJ-JD:40664] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-6673/2024]

498-A of IPC is of non-compoundable nature, the same has not

been dropped.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant and

learned Public Prosecutor concur with the fact of compromise.

They submit that in view of the compromise, they have no

objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

5. The genuineness of compromise is not in dispute. However,

since the trial Court was not empowered to compound certain

offences, the criminal proceedings could not be dropped. In the

premise, in the larger interest of justice, invoking inherent powers

vested with this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528

of BNSS, 2023) it is deemed expedient to quash the FIR in

question. Reference in this context may be had to judgment

rendered in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.

[(2012) 10 SCC 303].

6. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and FIR

No.0065/2023 dated 15.03.2023 registered at Police Station

Mahila Thana Jodhpur City West, and all other consequential

proceedings emanating therefrom for offences under Sections

498A and 406 of IPC against the petitioners, are hereby quashed

on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.

7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA),J 110-/Jitender//-

                                   Whether fit for reporting-   Yes      /      No









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)