Saturday, August 3, 2013

even when wife takes moolah &wishes to settle parties to run to HC as trial court need not, can not compund

even when wife takes moolah &wishes to settle parties to run to HC as trial court need not, can not compund

* wife files 498a and 406 (this is the minimum package in most cases) 
* then wife agrees to settle !! ... probably after "consideration" 
* both parties file petitions before trial court
* Trial court does NOT accept to compound 498a !!
* so all end up before HC 
* after HC lawyers have collected their fee and all are happy case progresses
* HC quashes 

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


Rajasthan High Court

Rohit Prajapat vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 11 September, 2012









Mr. Deepak Goyal for the petitioner.

Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor.

Mr. Dinesh Kala for the respondent No.2.



1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 26th July, 2012 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Cr. Case No. 969/10, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application to discharge the petitioner on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No.2.

2. In the instant case the petitioner is the husband of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2-complainant had filed the criminal complaint against the petitioner before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC. After the investigation directed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Police Station, Beawar City registered the case as FIR No. 203/10. The challan was also filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 406 and 498-A IPC before the concerned court and the court after framing the charge against the petitioner has proceeded with the trial of the case. On 26.7.12, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 filed the joint application before the trial court for compounding the offences under Section 406 and 498-A of IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between them. The trial court permitted the parties to compound the offence under Section 406 of IPC, however did not permit to compound the offence under Section 498-A of IPC vide the impugned order dated 26.7.12 and hence the present petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent No.2 have jointly submitted that the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the court and no purpose would be served to continue the criminal proceedings filed against the petitioner by the respondent No.2. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 1386, in case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr 2009 Cri.L.J. 331 and the judgments of this court in the case of Bablu & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. 2009(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 829, Anil Puri & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. 2007 (2) R.C.C. 648 and in the case of Babu Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. 2009(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1220, the learned counsel, the learned counsels have submitted that the petition be allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner be quashed.

4. In the instant case the trial court has not permitted the parties to compound the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC on the ground that the said offence is not compoundable. It is true that the trial court would not have the jurisdiction to permit the parties to compound the non-compoundable offence and, therefore, there is no illegality committed by the trial court by passing the impugned order. So far as the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (supra) as under :-

14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests 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 XXA of Indian Penal Code.

15. 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.

5. The ratio of the said decision has also been followed by this court in number of cases as relied upon by the learned counsels for the parties. The matter being matrimonial matter, and the petitioner and the respondent No.2 having arrived at a compromise which was also confirmed by them by remaining present in the court, this is the fit case to allow the parties to compound the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and drop the criminal proceedings against the petitioner pending before the trial court.

6. In that view of the matter, the criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 969/10) pending against the petitioner before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar are quashed. The petition stands allowed accordingly. (BELA M. TRIVEDI)J.


All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

M.R. Gidwani



@ATMwithDick on twitter or (recent blog so recent cases ) 
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases


Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist