Cr Msc 2173/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Cr. Msc. Petition No.2173/2007 Yogesh Shukla & (6) Ors. Versus State, Prashansha & JC Gaur Date of Order ::: 16/01/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Prem K.Sharma, for petitioners Mr. Nitin Maheshwari, for respondent No.2 Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor Instant petition U/s 482, CrPC has been filed for quashing of FIR-268/2003 lodged at PS Sodala (Jaipur) for offences U/Ss 498-A/406, IPC, for which petitioners are facing trial in Cr.Case No. 538/06 before Addl. Chief Judl. Mag. No.6, Jaipur City despite compromise being arrived at between the parties but not permitted vide order dt.09/10/07 on the premise of offences being not compoundable U/s 320, CrPC. Complainant (Pranshansha) and petitioner NO.1 (Yogesh Shukla) had filed joint application U/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage, Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on mutual consent whereby the spouse mutually agreed inter-alia that in the complaint filed by her pending trial for offences U/Ss 498-A, & 406, IPC, she will file separate application to withdraw criminal complaint with a view to discontinue Cr Msc 2173/07 //2// proceedings pending against petitioners before trial Magistrate on the premise that compromise has been arrived at between them in pursuance whereof, joint application was filed on 09/10/07 with a request not to prosecute the proceedings any further, but the same was dismissed vide order dt.09/10/07 (Ann.7) on the premise that offences alleged are not compoundable U/s 320, CrPC. Hence they have approached this Court by instant petition. Parties (spouse) duly represented by their counsel, are present in person today and both have jointly particularly complainant requested that they have settled their disputes and even on question put to complainant who is serving as Lecturer in Private College, she submits that she has voluntarily settled matrimonial dispute and she does not want to pursue criminal proceedings any further. Their application (Ann.3) seeking decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of compromise arrived at between them – pursuant to which decree granted by Family Court vide judgment dt.09/10/07 (Ann.5) and their joint application dt.09/10/07 (Ann.7) filed by trial Court to withdraw criminal case have been placed on record before this Court. Counsel further placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Cr Msc 2173/07 //3// 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.” 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 Cr Msc 2173/07 //4// 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 produced before the Family Court, 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 proceedings pending before Addl. Chief Judl. Mag. No.6, Jaipur City against petitioners in Cr.Case No.538/06 arising out of FIR-268/2003 lodged at PS Sodala (Jaipur) for offences U/Ss 498-A, & 406, IPC, are hereby quashed & set aside. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary compliance. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/2173CrMscP07mtrcmpr.doc)