In this criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed the proceedings arising from an FIR registered for matrimonial offences due to a voluntary compromise between the husband and wife.
The impugned FIR No.13/2011 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1404/2019
Raju Yadav S/o Shri Panchu Ram, R/o Nari Ka Bas Mansa Rampura, Police Station Jaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. Mohit Khandelwal for Mr. Deepak Chauhan |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Atul Sharma, Public Prosecutor Mr. Omveer Singh Saini, for complainant |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Order
22/04/2019
The present Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings arising out of FIR No.13/2011, registered at Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur, for the offence under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 323 and 313 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Raju Yadav and respondent No.2 Smt. Kamala Devi, got married on 11.05.2002 as per Hindu customs and rites. However, differences arose between the two while the marriage subsisted. Resultantly, owing to the escalation of acrimony and matrimonial differences, an FIR was registered against the husband petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, the disputes were amicably resolved between the parties and a compromise was voluntarily arrived at between the two.
(2 of 2)
[CRLMP-1404/2019]
It is further submitted that however, the Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan vide order dated 25.05.2018 has not entirely accepted the application for compounding the offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC.
Today, Smt. Kamala Devi, complainant-respondent No.2 aggrieved wife, is present in the Court along with her counsel Shri Omveer Singh Saini who identified her and verified the factum of settlement and asseverated that the parties have resolved the dispute by way of compromise and hence, the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the matter henceforth. The respondent No.2 has further prayed that in order to put all the disputes at rest, the present FIR may be quashed which could pose as a hurdle in the life sought to be led by the parties in future.
The petitioner is also present in the Court along with his counsel Shri Mohit Khandelwal who identified him and verified the facts of the settlement between them.
Learned counsel for the parties have relied upon B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , to reinforce his argument that in matrimonial matters, to allow harmony to prevail, this court while invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings in the interest of justice.
Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the dispute has been resolved by the parties, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings, are quashed.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
Mohit Rohila /220
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 323 and 313 IPC be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶19
B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raju Yadav
State Of Rajasthan
Kamala Devi
Prakash Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
