[2026:RJ-JD:14256]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2101/2026 Manish Saraswat S/o Shri Mukesh Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, House No.792, Hanuman Vihar, B.k. Kaul Nagar, Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

2. Smt. Rinita Sharma W/o Manish Saraswat, Aged About 32 Years, D/o Jagdish Prasad R/o Birla White Cement Plant, Rajshri Nagar, Khariya Khangar, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, Dist. Jodhpur Presently R/o P-532, Sector 06, Kudi Bhagtasni Housing Board, Jodhpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, DyGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

19/03/2026

1. The present misc. petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS, 2023) seeking quashing of the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City in Criminal Case No. 37/2019 (CIS No. 227/2019) (State Vs. Manish Saraswat), whereby while permitting compounding of the offence under Section 406 IPC, the learned trial Court declined to compound and quash the proceedings for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties arises out of matrimonial discord and the same has been amicably settled between the parties in the spirit of Lok Adalat. It is submitted that a written compromise dated 12.03.2026 (Annex.1) has been executed between the parties, followed by a joint application submitted before the learned trial Court (Annex.2). It is further submitted that though the learned trial Court has accepted the compromise qua offence under Section 406 IPC, it has declined to extend the benefit of such compromise to the offence under Section 498-A IPC, despite the entire dispute having been resolved.

3. It is further contended that the compromise between the parties is comprehensive in nature, wherein all disputes, including matrimonial and financial claims, have been settled and the parties have agreed to part ways. It is submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process of law.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. However, it is not disputed that the compromise between the parties has been placed on record and was also considered by the learned trial Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. From the material placed before this Court, it is evident that the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial in nature. The compromise deed (Annex.1) reflects that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, including issues relating to their marriage, permanent alimony and future claims. The joint application (Annex.2) and the order of the learned trial Court (Annex.3) further indicate that the compromise has been duly verified and acted upon to the extent of compounding the offence under Section 406 IPC.

7. The question which arises is whether, in such circumstances, the proceedings for the offence under Section 498-A IPC ought to be permitted to continue.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that in cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour, particularly arising out of matrimonial disputes, the High Court, in exercise of inherent powers, may quash criminal proceedings where the parties have settled their disputes and where continuation of proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

9. In the present case, the compromise between the parties is not superficial but is a complete and final settlement governing all aspects of their relationship. The terms of compromise clearly demonstrate that the parties have resolved their disputes voluntarily and have agreed to live separately without any subsisting claims. The matrimonial relationship itself has been brought to an end in substance and the parties have chosen to move forwar