Cr Msc 1997/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Cr. Msc. Petition No.1997/2007 Ram Lakhan & Smt. Mithlesh Versus State Date of Order ::: 16/01/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Rajesh Parashar, for petitioner No.1 Mr. Shivlal Verma, for complainant Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor Instant petition U/s 482, CrPC has been filed for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR-489/03 lodged at PS Todabhim (Karauli), for offences U/Ss 498-A/406/323, IPC, for which petitioner No.1 is facing trial in Cr.Case No.172/04 before Judl. Mag. Todabhim. Complainant (Mithlesh) and petitioner NO.1 (Ram Lakhan) had filed joint application dt.19/09/06 (Ann.1) before the trial Court in criminal proceedings inter-alia stating that they (spouse) have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes and mutually agreed to live together; but trial Court dismissed joint application (supra) on the premises that offences alleged are not compoundable U/s 320, CrPC, vide order dt.15/03/07 (Ann.2). Spouse (parties) duly represented by their counsel are present today and jointly submitted of Cr Msc 1997/07 //2// their having arrived at a compromise and Complainant further submitted that she is not interested to pursue the matter any further. Pursuant to order passed today, Deputy Registrar (Judl) recorded statement of complainant (which be made part of record) wherein she has deposed that at one point of time, there was dispute between them as her husband was not inclined to take care of her; so complaint was lodged but later on they have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes and thus she inter-alia reiterated of having arrived at compromise and their living together peacefully for last two years. 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 Cr Msc 1997/07 //3// the object of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code.” 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 alongwith stay Cr Msc 1997/07 //4// petition is allowed. In view of compromise arrived at between petitioner No.1 & complainant, their prayer is allowed and the proceedings pending before Judl. Mag. Todabhim against petitioner No.1 in Cr.Case No.172/2004 arising out of FIR-489/2003 lodged at PS Todabhim for offences U/Ss 498-A/406 & 323, IPC, are hereby quashed & set aside. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/1997CrMscP07mtrcmpr.doc)