Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anirudh Giri vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:43108) on 21 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:43108]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7249/2024
Anirudh Giri S/o Shiv Giri Swami, Aged About 34 Years, B/c
Goswami, R/o Plot No.70, Marudhar Kesari Nagar, Shobhawato Ki
Dhani, East Pal Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Bhanugiri Goswami @ Bhanu Priya D/o Shri Moti Giri
Goswami, R/o Near Swami Vivekanand School, Jyoti
Nagar, Chandna Bhakar, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gouri.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, P.P.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Panwar and
Mr. Suresh Sen, for R/2 complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
21/10/2024
1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings bearing Criminal Case
No.111/2019, pending before the learned Special Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases) Jodhpur Metro, pursuant
to an FIR No.176/2019, lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana,
Jodhpur City West, for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A
and 406 of IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom, is
sought herein, on the basis of compromise arrived between the
parties.
2. Apparently, the dispute arose on account of matrimonial
discord between the petitioner (husband) and the respondent No.2
/ complainant-wife, leading to the FIR in question. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the
criminal case, the petitioner (husband) and the respondent No.2 /
[2024:RJ-JD:43108] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7249/2024]
complainant-wife have entered in a written compromise. It
transpires that after arriving at mutual settlement, both the
parties have amicable parted their ways by dissolving their
marriage in accordance with law.
3. On a Court query qua the genuineness of the compromise,
learned counsel for the petitioners rely on an order of the learned
trial court dated 12.09.2024 and submits that based on the same
very compromise, proceedings under Section 406 of IPC were
dropped against the petitioners. However, as the remaining
offence i.e. Section 498-A IPC, is of non-compoundable nature,
the charge under said section has not been dropped by the
learned trial court.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
complainant concur with the fact of compromise and submit that
in view of the compromise, they have no objection.
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 quashed. In the
premise, in the larger interest of justice, invoking inherent powers
vested with this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding
Section 528 of BNSS), it is deemed expedient to quash the
FIR/proceedings in question to avoid undue hardship to the private
parties for mutual good relations and societal peace.
6. 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].
7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Criminal
Proceedings bearing Criminal Case No.111/2019, pending before
[2024:RJ-JD:43108] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7249/2024]
the learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT
Act Cases) Jodhpur Metro, pursuant to an FIR No.176/2019,
lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City West, for the
alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and all
proceedings emanating therefrom, qua the petitioner, are hereby
quashed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
68-Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
