Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Cr. Msc. Petition No.1714/2007 Nishant Kumar & (2) v. State

:: 15/01/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sanjay Sharma, for Mr. R.Goswami for petitioners Mr. Anil Mohata, for respondent No.2 Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor Instant petition U/s 482, CrPC has been filed for quashing of criminal proceedings arising

out of FIR-22/2005 lodged at PS Mahila (South), Jaipur for offences U/Ss 498-A, & 406, IPC, for which petitioners are facing trial in Cr.Case No.88/06 before Judl. Mag. No.12, Jaipur City. Complainant (Sarita) and petitioner NO.1 (Nishant Kumar) had filed joint application before the Family Court in proceedings under Hindu Marriage, Act, 1955 whereby the spouse have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes as is evident from order sheet dt.09/07/07 (Ann.1) and mutually agreed to live together. Spouse (parties) appeared on 13/12/2007 duly represented by their counsel and jointly submitted of having arrived at a compromise and Complainant further submitted that she is not interested to Cr Msc 1714/07 //2// pursue the matter any further and pursuant to directions vide order dt.13/12/2007, the parties have jointly filed application dt.14/12/07 inter-alia reiterating of having arrived at compromise and their living together peacefully.

Today also, spouse duly represented by their counsel, are present in person and both have jointly particularly complainant requested that they have settled their disputes and she does not want to pursue the matter any further. Counsel further placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386), wherein it has been observed that in cases where compromise has been arrived at among spouse, matrimonial litigation should not be encouraged and High Court should exercise inherent powers U/s 482, CrPC. Apex Court observed as infra:

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 XX-A of Indian Penal Code.

Cr Msc 1714/07 //3// Even in either circumstances, as well, Apex Court in Ruchi Agawal Vs.

Amit Agrawal (2005(3) SCC 299), observed ad infra:

Therefore, we of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.

In matrimonial litigations arising out of family disputes, once the parties have arrived at amicable settlement and compromise, it is otherwise not in the interest of parties to prosecute the matter any further otherwise it may result in bitterness among their relations, which can never be legislative intent. Thus viewed, in light of statement made by Counsel representing their respective parties on having agreed to by virtue of compromise, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served to proceed further in the trial.

Consequently, misc. petition is allowed. In view of compromise arrived at between petitioners & respondent No.2, their prayer is allowed and the Cr Msc 1714/07 //4// proceedings pending before Judl. Mag. No.12, Jaipur City against petitioners in Cr.Case No.88/07 arising out of FIR-22/2005 lodged at PS Mahila (South), Jaipur City for offences U/Ss 498-A, & 406, IPC, are hereby quashed & set aside. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/1714CrMscP07mtrcmpr.doc)