High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
TULSHI RAM v STATE & ANR. - CRLMP Case No. 556 of 2006  RD-RJ 990 (5 May 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
O R D E R
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.556/2006
(Tulsi Ram Vs. State & Ors.)
Date of order : 5.5.2006
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Mr. Nagraj Goswami, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor.
Mr. Iqbal Sherani, for the non-petitioner.
By this criminal misc. petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of criminal proceedings pending against him in the court of Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur in
Criminal Case No.12/2004 for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties which has resulted into criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 498-A, 323 and 341 IPC pending before the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that compromise has arrived at in between the parties and now there is no dispute in between them. He further states that both the parties have submitted the compromise before the learned trial court and prayed that criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner be dropped but the learned trial court has accepted the compromise as far as it relates to offence under Sections 323 and 341 I.P.C. and refused to attest the compromise as far as it relates to offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. He states that the learned trial court despite the fact that parties have entered into written compromise, has proceeded ahead in the criminal case pending against the petitioner.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, reported in
(2003) 4 SCC 675 and in case of Mohd. Shamim & Ors.
Vs. Nahid Begum & Anr., reported in 2005 (1) WLC (SC)
Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has also submitted before me that comprise has arrived at in between both the parties. Therefore, criminal proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed.
I have considered the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case as well as the documents produced before me by the learned counsel for the parties.
I have also gone through the both the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. (supra), their
Lordships while considering the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A, have observed as under:
"There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing
Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.
Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her to her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of
Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code".
"In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and
Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the
In case of Mohd. Shamim & Ors. (supra), their Lordships have also quashed the FIR lodged against the appellants, taking into account the settlement arrived at in between the parties.
Taking into consideration the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the complainant, I am satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled their matrimonial dispute and now they have no grievance against each other. In this view of the matter and taking into account the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. (supra), I find it to be a fit case where inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised.
For the reasons as stated hereinabove, I allow this misc. petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioner pending in the court of
Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur in Criminal Case
No.12/2004 for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.
(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.