Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE & ANR.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. v STATE & ANR. - CRLMP Case No. 801 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 2981 (29 May 2007)

S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.801/2007

(Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.)

Date of order :: 29.05.2007

HON'BLE MR. KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA, J.

Mr.Navneet Sharma for

Mr.S.K.Bohra, for the petitioners.

Mr.Ashok Upadhyay, PP for the State.

Mr.H.M.Saraswat, for the respondent No.2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By this criminal misc. petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of criminal proceedings pending against them in the court of Judicial

Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.69/2006 for offence under Section 498-A and 406 I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there it is a dispute between the parties which has resulted into criminal proceedings against the petitioners under 498-A and 406 IPC pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur in

Criminal Case No.69/2006. He further states that the parties have come to the comprise and they have no grievance against each other. It is further stated that after the death of her husband, the respondent no.2 has re-married with one Mahendra. They are living together peacefully. She does not to keep the criminal proceedings continue against the present petitioners. Learned counsel further states that since parties have amicably settled their dispute, an application to compound the offences has been filed before the trial court but the learned Judicial Magistrate has rejected the compromise application being the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 406 IPC are non- compoundable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioners which is not proper. 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

(2003) 4 SCC 675.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also submitted before me that comprise has arrived at between the parties.

I have considered the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the relevant record 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 as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2, I am satisfied that both the parties have genuinely settled their 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 petitioners pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.69/2006 for offence under Section 498-A and 406 I.P.C.

(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.