1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.1549/2007 DATE OF ORDER :: March 24, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Shrikant Verma, for the petitioner. Mr.N.Moolchandani P.P. for the State. Mr.A.K.Choudhary,for Mr.Nimesh Suthar, for non-petitioner No.2. BY THE COURT: By the instant Cr. Misc. Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No.35/2004 arising out of FIR No.63/2004, Police Station, Mahila Thana, Bikaner for the offences under sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned. 2 The petitioner and non-petitioner No.2 are husband and wife. Non-petitioner No.2 lodged an FIR being FIR No. 63/2004. The investigation ensued and after investigation, the police has filed the challan against the petitioner for the said offences. However, during the trial of the case, the parties have compromised the matter and resolved the dispute between them amicably and started living together. Non-petitioner No.2 moved an application before the trial court seeking permission to compound the offences and filed the compromise before the trial court. The trial court declined to accept the compromise on the ground that offences under sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. are not compoundable. Hence, this petition. Non-petitioner No.2 Smt. Sandhya, wife of the petitioner is present in Court. She has filed a compromise before this Court being CRLMA No.642/2008. She has been identified by her counsel Mr.A.K.Choudhary, who appeared on behalf of Mr.Nimesh Suthar, the counsel engaged by non- petitioner No.2. The compromise has been verified by Registrar Administration of this Court. Non-petitioner No.2 is present in Court. She submits that she has settled the dispute amicably and the misunderstanding between her husband and herself has been cleared and they have been living together 3 as husband and wife and in order to settle the matrimonial home, she seeks to compound the offences as also to quash the proceedings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the CRLMA No.642/2008 is allowed permitting the non- petitioner No.2 to compound the offences. In B.S.Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 SCC (Cri.) 848, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing the FIR. The Apex Court further observed that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from setting earlier and that is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the IPC. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision and since the parties have resolved their dispute and non-petitioner No.2 is now living with her husband peacefully, no useful purpose 4 will be served in allowing the proceedings to continue any more. No evidence is likely to come against the petitioner. In the result, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceeding in Criminal Regular Case No.35/2004 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner is hereby quashed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/- 5 S.B.Cr.Misc. Stay Petition No.1025/2007 In S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.1549/2007 (Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of order : March 24, 2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.Shrikant Verma, for the petitioner. Mr.N.Moolchandani P.P. for the State. Mr.A.K.Choudhary,for Mr.Nimesh Suthar, for non-petitioner No.2. Since the main petition has itself been allowed, stay petition stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR),J. m.asif/-