Allowed

Surendra v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC9 May 2017CRLMP/3342/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC. The court held that despite the non-compoundability of Section 498A, the proceedings should be quashed based on a prior compromise and citing Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors. (2005) SCC 299.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 114/2013 against the petitioner for offence under Section 498A IPC are quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise.

Surendra Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3342/2015

¶4

Surendra Son of Shri Om Prakash, by caste Aheer, Resident of Bahalwan Nagar Ki Dhani, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶5

..Accused/Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

2. Smt. Suman wife of Shri Surendra D/o Shri Sher Singh Aheer, by caste Aheer, Resident of New Colony, Singhana, Police Station Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

¶10

….Complainant/Respondent.

¶11

DATE OF ORDER ::: 9^th May, 2017

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶13

Mr. Subhash Sharma for the Petitioner. Mr. Gajendra Vyas for the Respondent. Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, PP.

¶14

Petitioner accused Surendra preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 114/2013 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra) pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Khetari, District Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 498A and 323 IPC on the basis of compromise.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that trial for offence under Section 498A and 323 IPC is pending against the present petitioner accused before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Khetari, being Criminal Case No. 114/2013 wherein on 17^th June,

¶16

¶17

2013 compromise was filed by petitioner accused and respondent No. 2 complainant victim. The same was verified by the learned Trial Court and was attested for offence under Section 323 IPC being compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Since offence punishable under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable, therefore, learned Trial Court refused to attest the compromise for this offence. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17^th June, 2013 petitioner preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court for quashing the entire proceedings pending before learned Trial Court for offence under Section 498A IPC.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since parties have entered into compromise and compromise has already been submitted before the Trial Court and same has been verified and attested for offence under Section 323 IPC then, no fruitful purposed will be served continuing criminal proceedings for offence under Section 498A IPC which is matrimonial dispute and is private in nature, therefore, this misc. petition may be allowed and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case may be quashed and set aside.

¶19

Shri Gajendra Vyas learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 complainant submits that it is true that compromise was submitted before the Trial Court but now respondent No. 2 complainant does not want to compromise the matter, therefore, misc. petition may be dismissed.

¶20

Learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali also submits that this misc. petition may be dismissed.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned PP. and learned counsel appearing

¶22

¶23

on behalf of respondent No. 2 complainant. Application for compromise submitted before the Trial Court by the parties is as

¶24

followed:-

¶25

U;k;ky; vijeq[;U;kf;d eft0 egksn;]

¶26

[ksrMh

¶27

ljdkj cuke lqjsUnz eq0u0 /kkjk 498 ,] 323 Hkk-n-lekU;ojekgsn;]

¶28

lsokesa i{kdkjku ds e/; jkftukek fuEuizdkj lsok esa is’k gS%&

¶29

1- ;g fd bl izdj.k es ai{kdkjku esa yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls izsfjr gksdj nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; le>kbZl ls jkthukek gks x;k gS vc ifjoknh i{k blesa vkxs dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrs gSA

¶30

vr% jktkukek is’k dj fuosnu gS fd /kkjk 498,] 323 Hkk-n-l- esa jkthukek rLnhd dj izdj.k esa ctfj;s jkthukek fuf.kZr fd;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA

¶31

fnukad% 17-6-2013

¶32

izkFkhZ vfHk;qDrx.k izkFkhZ&vfHk;ksxh 1- lqjsUnz iq= vkseizdk’k 2- lqeu iq= Jh 'ksj flag tkfr vghj fuoklh tkfr vghj fuoklh U;w dkWyksuh cgyoku uxj dh <k.kh fla/kkuk rg0 cqgkuk rg0 [ksrMh

¶33

From the perusal of aforesaid application for compromise submitted before Trial Court, it reveals that parties have settled their entire dispute and submitted compromise before the Trial Court which was admitted by the parties. Since offence under Section 323 IPC is compoundable, therefore, learned Trial Court attested the compromise for offence under Section 323 IPC and offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable, therefore no order was passed in this regard.

¶34

In the mater of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors. reported in (2005)3 Supreme Court Cases 299,

¶35

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:-

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the abovementioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the respondent husband and his family under treat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum

¶37

¶38

maintenance and her stridhan properties. We find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the respondent husband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted, thus had performed his part of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her pat of the obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section 125. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.

¶39

In view of the abovesaid subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to the complete justice, we should while dismissing this appeal also quash the proceedings arising from criminal case Cr. No. 224 of 2003 registered in Police Station Bilaspur (District Rampur) filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and unde Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is disposed of.

¶40

In the case in hand also parties have submitted compromise before the Trial Court which has been verified and now respondent NO. 2 complainant wants to withdraw the same just to harass the petitioner accused which is not permissible and in view of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors. (Supra) such permission cannot be given to respondent complainant and this misc. petition deserves acceptance which is hereby allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case NO. 114/2013 (State of Rajasthan Vs.

¶41

¶42

Surendra) for offence under Section 498A IPC pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetari, District Jhunjhunu is quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise.

¶43

[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J.

¶44

Komal/105.

Surendra v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Bhumla Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sumit Khandelwal Vs Metropolitan MAGI.NO31 and Ors.

Smt Kesari Devi and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Narendra Karora Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Chavvan Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.