The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., allowed a petition to quash an FIR registered against a husband. The court accepted the submit
The impugned FIR No.76/2016 and all subsequent criminal proceedings 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. 2436/2019
Pawan Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramphool Meena B/c Meena, Resident of House No.A-55, Shiv Shakti Nagar, Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
...Complainant-Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Upadhyay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, Public Prosecutor Mr. Anshul Sharma, for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment / Order
12/04/2019
The present miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings arising out of FIR No.76/2016, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur (East) for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 354-A and 377 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Pawan Kumar Meena and respondent No.2 Pratibha Meena, got married on 06.06.2015 as per social 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.
[CRLMP-2436/2019]
(2 of 2)
It is further submitted that however, the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur vide order dated 26.02.2019 has not accepted the application for compounding the offences under Section 498A.
Today, Smt. Pratibha Meena, complainant-respondent No.2 aggrieved wife, is present in the Court along with her counsel Mr. Anshul Sharma 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 does not wish to pursue the matter henceforth. The respondent has further prayed that in order to put all the disputes to 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 Mr. Govind Upadhyay who identified him. The petitioner 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 /120
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a matrimonial FIR alleging offences under Sections 498-A IPC and others is quashable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon the parties reaching a mutual compromise.
Whether the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash proceedings despite the judicial magistrate not accepting the compounding application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶20
B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pawan Kumar Meena
State of Rajasthan
Pratibha Meena
Prakash Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
