Crlmp3581/2016

// 1 //

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

ORDER

IN

S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.3581/2016

1.

Manoj Jain son of Shri Ganpat Lal

Jain, aged about 31 years, resident of

11/715, Malivya Nagar, Jaipur

2.

Manish Jain son of Shri Ganpat Lal

Jain, aged about 28 years, resident of

11/715, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur

3.

Ganpat Lal Jain son of late Shri

Girdhari Lal Jain, aged about 59 years,

resident of 11/715, Malviya Nagar,

Jaipur

4.

Usha Jain wife of Shri Ganpat Lal

Jain, aged about 55 years, resident of

11/715, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur

...accused-petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Rajasthan through

Public Prosecutor

...respondent

2.

Pooja Jain daughter of Shri Sunil

Jain, aged about 29 years, resident of

Motisingh

Bhomiyo-ka-Rasta,

Johari

Bazar, P.S. Ramganj, Jaipur

...complainant-respondent

Date of Order ::: 07.10.2016

Present

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

Mr. Rakesh Chandel, counsel for accused-petitioners

Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor, for the State

Mr. Dinesh Pareek, counsel for complainant-respondent

####

By the Court:-

Accused-petitioners,

except

accused-petitioner

no.3, and complainant-respondent no.2 are present in the

court. They have been identified by their respective

counsel. Their presence has been recorded.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure has been filed by accused-petitioners for

quashment of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.1135/2015

(1536/2015) – State Vs. Manoj Jain and Others, pending in

the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.18,

Jaipur Metropolitan, for offence under Sections 498A of the

Indian Penal Code.

Crlmp3581/2016

// 2 //

It is contended that the matter has been

compromised between the parties and the parties moved a

joint application before the court of Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, praying

for disposal of the case on the basis of compromise. In the

application, they stated that the parties have compromised

the matter in view of the spirit of 'lok adalat' and there

remains no dispute between them with regard to 'stridhan',

maintenance, jewellery etc., and that accused-petitioner-

husband and complainant-respondent-wife have filed petition

before the Family Court, Jaipur, seeking dissolution of

their marriage by mutual consent, and that the complainant-

respondent does not want any action against the accused-

petitioners.

The learned trial court, vide order dated

05.05.2016, attested the compromise so far it relates to

offence under Section 406 IPC and acquitted the accused-

petitioners for that charge in view of the compromise, but

refused the attest the compromise for the charge under

Section 498A of the IPC on the ground that it is not

compoundable.

Learned counsel for accused-petitioners, in support

of the case, has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in

B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another -

(2003) 4 SCC 675, and argued that in view of the ratio of

these judgment, the offence against the accused-petitioners

under Section 498A of the IPC is compoundable and the

criminal proceedings are liable to be dropped.

Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent-wife

submits that the criminal proceedings pending before the

trial court may be ordered to be compromised in view of the

above relied judgment, according to which offence under

Section 498A IPC is compoundable and thus the proceedings

against the accused-petitioners be ordered to be dropped.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

Crlmp3581/2016

// 3 //

the material on record.

The question that fell for determination before the

Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana

and Another - (2003) 4 SCC 675, was about the ambit of the

inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure read