Allowed

Kanhiya and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC19 Dec 2017CRLMP/578/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC in a matrimonial dispute where parties had obtained mutual divorce and compromised, invoking power to quash even non-compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No.180/2016 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and all subsequent proceedings; stay application disposed of as dead.

Kanhiya and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPVK

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 578 / 201 7

¶3

I. Kanhiya S/o Shivdayal B/c Pujari, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Gopipura Mandawara Tehsil & P.S. Hindaun Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶4

Hariom B/c Pujari, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Gopipura Mandawara Tehsil & P.S. Hindaun Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶5

Ramu B/c Pujari, Aged About '19 Years, R/o Gopipura Mandawara Tehsil & P.S. Hindaun Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶6

Krishna D/o Shivdayal, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Gopipura Mandawara Tehsil & P.S. Hindaun Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶7

Shivdayal S/o Vallabh B/c Pujari, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Gopipura Mandawara ~ehsii & P.S.. Hindaun. Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶8

Maya W/o Vallabh B/c Pujari, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Gopipura Mandawara Tehsil & P.S. Hindaun Distt. Karauli Rajasthan

¶9

Versus

¶10

¶11

1. State of Rajasthan Through PP

¶12

Lata D/o Prahlad W/o Kanhiya B/c Pujari, R/o Gopipura Mandawra Tehsil & P.S. Hindaun Distt. Bharatpur At Present Earlier R/o Village Bhutoli P.S. Halena Distt. Bharatpur (raj.) At Present W/o Kamal S/o Harkanth B/c

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.P. Yadav for Mr. Rajeev Bansal For the State Mr. N.S. Dhakad, .Public Prosecutor

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGM AHLUWALIA

¶15

/ Order

¶16

19/12/2017

¶17

"To be Mentioned."

¶18

On 15.12.2017 the order was dictated in the open Court, but before the same co'uld be signed, certain clarifications were necessary, hence, it was ordered that the present matter be listed on

¶19

19.12.2017 under the heading of "To be mentioned." r J

¶20

Instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying therein that the impugned order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Weir District Bharatpur, whereby cognizance of offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. was taken against the accused-petitioners, be set aside, along with the order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Bayana 3 I District Bharatpur, whereby revision petition was dismissed and the order of cognizance was upheld.

¶21

Briefly stated that two brothers, namely Kanhaiya, petitioner No.1 herein and Hariom, petitioner No.2 herein were married with two sisters viz., Lata and Anjoo respe,ct.ively. Earlier Anjoo had lodged F.I.R. due to matrimonial dispute against her husband - Hariom and his relatives. It is stated that in that F.I.R. due to compromise, proceeding have been dropped. It is further stated that subsequently, Lata, complainant-respondent N0.2 had lodged a complaint (Anneuxre-1) for offence under Sections 498-A ,and 406 I.P.C. The Court in the said complaint has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. It is stated that during pendency of the petition, better sense prevailed and the parties obtained divorce vide Annexure-6. The judgment of decree of divorce dated 02.08.2016 is part of the record. It was specifically noted in the judgment whereby divorce was granted by the Id. Court below that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and they no longer intend to pursue the criminal litigation.

¶22

On 15.12.2017 Lata, complainant-respondent No.2 had appeared in this Court. She was identified by her Counsel. She specifically stated that she no longer intends to continue with the impugned F.I.R.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, '> this Court is of the view that in order to promote everlasting peace, amity, harmony and tranquility between the parties, especially when they have departed company by way of grant of mutual divorce, the present petition ought to be allowed.

¶24

It has been often held by the Courts that hour of the compromise is the finest hour between the parties and the Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings, even. q'ua non-compoundable offences.

¶25

Furthermore, in the case of B.S. loshi Vs. State of Harayana, reported in [(2003) 4 S.C.C. 6751, the Apex Court has opined that although offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is noncompoundable, but in cases of matrimonial dispute to bring families at peace, if the parties arrive at compromise, then offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. can be quashed by invoking its power under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

¶26

Considering the fact th,at both the~pat-ties have compromised their matrimonial dispute, and the joint prayer made by the parties, present in person yesterday and in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the ease of B.S. Joshi [supra], the present petition is accepted and the impugned F.I.R. bearing No.180/2016, registered at Police Station Halena District Bharatpur for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C., along with all subsequertt proceedings is, hereby, quashed.

¶27

Consequent upon disposal of the main petition, the stay application, filed therewith does not survive and the same is also disposed of.

¶28

(KAMWALJII SINGH AHLUWAh1A)J.

Kanhiya and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhiya and Ors. 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

Gopal and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Suresh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Lal Chand Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Chandarani Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Vijendra Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rumal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp