The High Court set aside the trial court's order refusing to compound a Section 498A offence, quashed pending criminal proceedings, and allowed the compromise between the husband and wife, relying on B.S. Joshi.
Order dated 19.01.2023 refusing to compound offence under Section 498A IPC set aside; entire criminal proceedings 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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1551/2023
Rohit Ralhan S/o Shri Sunil Kumar Ralhan, Aged About 153 Years, R/o B -555 Ground Floor Greenfields Colony Faridabad Haryana
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr.Vishwas Khatri, Adv. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr.Gaurav Singh, PP |
| Ms.Kinjal Purohit, Adv. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
04/07/2023
The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the court of Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Original Case No.40/2021 (NCV No.2219/2021) arising out of FIR No.153/2020, P.S. Mahila Thana (East) Jodhpur for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 313, 323 & 354 IPC. The learned Magistrate refused to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC vide order dt. 19.01.2023.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent No.2-complainant are husband and wife. They have entered into a compromise in the spirit of Lok
[CRLMP-1551/2023]
(2 of 3)
Adalat. The copy of compromise has been produced before the trial court but the trial court has refused to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC on the basis of compromise, therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 19.01.2023 to that extent may be quashed and the offence under Section 498A IPC may also be compounded and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and resolved their dispute amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioners in relation to offences punishable under Section 498A IPC.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner and complainant have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute and in the view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2003 (4) SCC p.675 in which it has been held that the proceedings under Section 498A IPC can be quashed because it is the matrimonial matter, the order dated 19.01.2023 refusing to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the trial court refusing to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC is hereby set aside on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties and while compounding the offence under Section 498A IPC, the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the court of Additional Civil Judge &
[CRLMP-1551/2023]
(3 of 3)
Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Original Case No.40/2021 (NCV No.2219/2021) are hereby quashed.
The criminal misc. petition is allowed accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
189-NK/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498A IPC can be quashed and compounded after the parties arrive at a compromise.
Whether the trial court's order refusing to compound an offence under Section 498A IPC on the basis of a compromise should be set aside.
Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a matrimonial dispute settled by compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶19
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2003 (4) SCC p.675 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Rohit Ralhan
State Of Rajasthan
Smt. Madhuri Bhatia
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
