S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.697/2011

Shankar Lal Sachdeva v. State of Raj & anr

Order dt:30.5.2011

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJATSHAN AT

JODHPUR

::

J U D G M E N T

::

PETITIONER:

RESPONDENTS:

Shankar Lal Sachdeva

v.

State of Raj. & anr

S.B. CR. MISC. PETITION NO.697 OF 2011

:::

Date of Order: 30^th May 2011

::

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

Mr Anil Vyas, for the petitioner

Ms Rajlaxmi, Public Prosecutor

Mr Vikas Bijarnia, for the respondent No.2

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

for the complaint-wife as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

2.This Criminal Misc. Petition under sec.482 CrPC has been filed by

the petitioners for quashing of the proceeding pending before the

Judicial Magistrate, No.3, Bikaner in Cr. Regular Case

No.1190/2009- State v. Shankar Lal for offence under secs.498A

IPC. By order dated 29.1.2011, the learned court below acquitted

the petitioner from offence under secs.406 & 323 IPC on the basis

of compromise arrived at between the parties; however, charge

under sec.498A IPC was sustained.

3.Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the

respondent No.2-complainant-wife and the petitioner have arrived

at compromised for resolving all litigation arising out of their

matrimonial dispute and have withdrawn most of the cases before

S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.697/2011

Shankar Lal Sachdeva v. State of Raj & anr

Order dt:30.5.2011

2/3

concenred courts and now only Cr. Case No.1190/2009 is pending

before the court below in respect of offence under sec.498A IPC,

therefore, in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of B.S. Joshi & ors v. State of Haryana & anr, AIR

2003 SC 1386 = (2003) 4 SCC 675; if compromise has been

arrived at in between the parties for the offence then such

compromise can be accepted while exercising powers under

sec.482 CrPC.

4.I have perused the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) dealing with the same

controversy. With reference to exercise of jurisdiction, it has been

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if the offences are

not compoundable but to secure ends of justice, the High Court in

exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or

FIR or complaint or the compromise arrived at between the parties

(which has also been verified by the court below in the present

matter in respect of offence under secs.323, 406 IPC) and sec.320

CrPC does not limit or affect the powers under sec.482 CrPC. This

view has been followed and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & anr,

RLW (2009) 1 (SC) 185.

5.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission

made by learned counsel for the respective parties in the light of

aforesaid decisions rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court and

considering the fact that the parties have arrived at compromise

for resolving their matrimonial dispute and that the wife-

complainant has now decided not to prosecute any litigation

agaisnt the petitioner-husband; this Court while exercising the

S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.697/2011

Shankar Lal Sachdeva v. State of Raj & anr

Order dt:30.5.2011

3/3

inherent powers in view of the compromise arrived at between the

parties, deems it just and proper to accept this misc. petition.

6.In view of the above, the present Cr. Misc. Petition is allowed

while following the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

cases of B.S. Joshi's as well as in Nikhil Merchant's (supra). The

impugned order dated 29.1.2011 passed by the learned court

below is set aside to the extent of not accepting the compromise

in respect of charge under sec.498A IPC and permission is granted

for compoudning the offence of under secs.498A IPC by accepting

the compromise between parties to the matter, provided that by

the effect of compromise, none of