Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PARAS & ANR. versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PARAS & ANR. v STATE - CRLMP Case No. 672 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 2751 (17 May 2007)

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.672/2007

(Paras & Anr. Vs. State of Raj.)

Date of order :: 17.5.2007

HON'BLE MR. KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA, J.

Mr.Surendra Surana, for the petitioners.

Mr.Ashok Upadhyay, PP for the State.

By this joint criminal misc. petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C., the petitioner No.2 - wife has prayed for quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner No.1 - husband pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Criminal Case

No.942/2005 for offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC

Heard learned counsel for the the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties which has resulted into criminal proceedings against the petitioner No.1 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate,

Pali. Thereafter, both the petitioners have come to the comprise and they have no grievance against each other. He further states that petitioner No.1-wife as well as petitioner No.2-husband has submitted the compromise before the lower court but the lower court has accepted the compromise as far as it relates to the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and refused to attest the compromise as far as it relates to the offence under Sections 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 No.1.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 (2203) 4 SCC 675.

I have considered the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case as well as the documents produced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also gone through the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. (supra) wherein 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

Code".

Taking into consideration the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am satisfied that both the petitioners 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

No.1 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Criminal

Case No.942/2005 for offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC.

(KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA ), J.

NK


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.