[2026:RJ-JP:2788]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 212/2026 Manish Gupta S/o Shri Ramchandra Gupta, Aged About 31 Years, R/o House No. -82, N.e.b. Subhash Nagar, Alwar (Raj). Presently At Vill.- Manjra Mainiya Bhindusi, Dist. Khairthal- Tijara (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Bharti Gupta W/o Sh. Manish Gupta D/o Sh. Navalkishor Gupta, Aged About 31 Years, R/o House No. -82, N.e.b.

Subhash Nagar, Alwar (Raj).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma Ms. Nisha Rohila For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Shubham Arora, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

21/01/2026

1. The instant misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Alwar arising out of FIR No.302/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Alwar for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354A & 406 of IPC whereby, the learned Magistrate attested the compromise only to the extent of offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC but refused to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC.

2. After registration of the aforesaid FIR, the police conducted investigation in the matter and submitted charge-sheet before the concerned court for offences punishable under Sections 498A &

406 of IPC against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties have entered into a compromise. It is submitted that parties have also moved an application for mutual divorce. During trial, both the parties filed an application for compounding of the offences under Sections 406 & 498A of IPC in terms of compromise. It is stated in the application that parties have entered into compromise in the spirit of lok adalat. It is submitted that the trial Court vide order dated 12.12.2025 partly allowed the said application while permitting and attesting the compromise to the extent of offence under Section 406 IPC but refused to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC, as the same is not compoundable. It is prayed that the order dated 12.12.2025 may be modified and the offence under Section 498A IPC may also be compounded and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner may be quashed.

4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant do not dispute the factum of compromise.

5. In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for my perusal; considering the fact that 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, and also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604], the impugned order is liable to be modified and the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties although the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC alleged to be made out in the instant case is not compoundable.

6. In view of the above, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Alwar to the extent of refusing to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC is quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and the offence under Section 498A of IPC is compounded. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before learned Addit