Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:43116) on 21 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:43116]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7300/2024
1. Suresh Prakash S/o Lt. Sh. Ramakishan, Aged About 26
Years, R/o House No. 7/59, Hanuman Bagh Behind Shiv
Mandir, Behind Mali Dharamshala, Didwana Road, Ps
Kotwali, Dist. Nagaur.
2. Sushila W/o Lt. Sh. Ramakishan, Aged About 48 Years, R/
o House No. 7/59, Hanuman Bagh Behind Shiv Mandir,
Behind Mali Dharamshala, Didwana Road, Ps Kotwali,
Dist. Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Shilpa Choudhary W/o Sh. Suresh Dhaka, R/o
Outside Kumhari Darwaja, College Road, Behind Kumhari
Hostel, Nagaur. At Present C/o Basti Ram Rao, Near
Boranada Bus Stand, Boranada Teh. Luni Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Acharya.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
Dr. Manjula Choudhary -R/2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
21/10/2024
1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings bearing Criminal Case
No.95/2019 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate (PCPNDT) Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan, pursuant to
an FIR No.222/2018, dated 06.11.2018, registered at Police
Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City (West), for the alleged
offences under Sections 498-A & 406 of IPC, is sought herein, on
the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.
[2024:RJ-JD:43116] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7300/2024]
2. On a Court query qua the genuineness of the compromise,
learned counsel for the petitioner relies on an order of the learned
trial court dated 10.09.2024 and submits that based on the same
very compromise, proceedings under Section 406 of IPC were
dropped against the petitioner. However, as the remaining offence
i.e. 498-A of IPC is of non-compoundable nature, the same has
not been dropped by the learned trial court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
No.1 (husband) and respondent No.2 (complainant-wife) have
amicably settled their differences and their marriage has been
dissolved mutually. Therefore, the criminal proceedings deserves
to be quashed.
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. (Now Section 528
of BNSS), it is deemed expedient to quash the FIR and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom for mutual good
relations between the parties and to maintain societal peace.
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 petition is allowed. Criminal Case
No.95/2019 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
[2024:RJ-JD:43116] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7300/2024]
Magistrate (PCPNDT) Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan, pursuant to
an FIR No.222/2018, dated 06.11.2018, registered at Police
Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City (West), for the alleged
offences under Sections 498-A & 406 of IPC, is hereby quashed on
the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J.
90-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
