Allowed

Mohammad Murtaja v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Mar 2024CRLMP/757/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC in a matrimonial dispute after an amicable settlement was reached. Relying on Gian Singh, the court held that although the offence is non-compoundable, quashing proceedings was necessary to maintain harmony and secure justice where the dispute was resolved.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under Criminal Case No. 9272/2019 before Metropolitan Magistrate Jodhpur are quashed; petitioner acquitted; bail bonds discharged.

Mohammad Murtaja Vs State of Rajasthan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:14080]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 757/2024

¶4

Mohammad Murtaja S/o Kadar Hussain, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Bidi Kamdar Devkhana, Inamdar Mohalla, Borakwada, Dist. Patan (Gujarat)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Munavar Ali S/o Samshudeen, R/o Karnal Sahab Ki Hawali, Udaimandir, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶9

Najmin W/o Mohammad Murtaja, D/o Munavar Ali, R/o Karnal Sahab Ki Hawali, Udaimandir, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶13

Order

¶14

19/03/2024

¶15

The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the proceedings pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No.9272/2019 (State Vs. Mohammad Murtaja) for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.

¶16

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:14080]

[CRLMP-757/2024]

amicable settlement and now, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further. The parties filed a compromise application before the trial court for compounding the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC. The learned trial court verified the compromise only to the extent of offence under Section 406 of the IPC and the trial is pending for the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC. Hence, it is prayed that the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be quashed based on the compromise.

¶21

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record more particularly the nature of allegations and the compromise deed executed in between the parties so also the order passed by the trial court attesting the compromise to the extent of Section 406 of the IPC. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. The offence alleged in this matter is noncompoundable, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶23

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by

[2024:RJ-JD:14080]

[CRLMP-757/2024]

(3 of 4)

exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy that will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. This court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and feels that where the dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbours or having business relationship and which does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides, to end-up the dispute in between them permanently as well as for restitution of relationship, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings initiated thereto.

¶28

Here in this case, though the offence is not compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essentially a matrimonial dispute not affecting public peace and tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain the harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the proceedings.

¶29

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the proceedings pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No.9272/2019 (State Vs. Mohammad Murtaja) and any other other proceedings connected therewith are hereby quashed and

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:14080]

[CRLMP-757/2024]

set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from the charge and his bail

¶34

bonds are discharged.

¶35

The stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶36

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶37

244-Pramod/-

Mohammad Murtaja v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Murtaja v. State of Rajasthan

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

Khuda Baksh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vallabh Kiradu Vs State of Rajasthan

Neerajkant Kukkad Vs Singal Trending Company

Vishal Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Dahiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan