1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Virendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.1662/2007 DATE OF ORDER :: February 20,2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Manish Pitaliya, for the petitioners. Mr.N.Moolchandani P.P. for the State. Mr.Deepak Menaria, for respondent No.2. BY THE COURT: By the instant Cr. Misc. Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.282/2003, State Vs. Virendra & Ors. pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begun, Distt. Chittorgarh (for short `the trial court' hereinafter) for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Facts giving rise to the instant petition are that respondent No.2 Smt. Anita married to petitioner No.1 Virendra Kumar. However, during their marital life, there had been some differences and it was alleged that the petitioners harassed and subjected the respondent No.2 to cruelty and misappropriated her “Stridhan”. On the report lodged by respondent No.2, the police investigated the matter and filed the challan against the petitioners. During trial of the case, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and moved before the trial court seeking compounding the offences. The trial court accepted the compromise so far offence under section 323 I.P.C., however, declined to accept the compromise for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. on the ground that the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. is not compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition. In the compromise, filed before the tral court by respondent No.2, she has stated that she has settled the dispute amicably and the misunderstanding between the parties has been cleared and she has been living with her husband and parents-in-law peacefully. Since the parties have resolved their dispute and respondent No.2 is now living 3 with her husband peacefully at her in-laws house, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the proceedings to continue any more. No evidence is likely to come against the petitioners. In the compromise, respondent No.2 has clearly stated that she does not want to prosecute and make any statement against her husband and parents-in-law. 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, in my view no useful purpose will be served in allowing the proceeding to continue. 4 In the result, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No.282/2003, State Vs. Virendra & Ors. pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begun, Distt.Chittorgarh is hereby quashed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/- 5 S.B.Cr.Misc. Stay Petition No.1225/2007 In S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.1662/2007 (Virendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of order : February 26, 2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.Manish Pitaliya, for the petitioners. Mr.N.Moolchandani P.P. for the State. Mr.Deepak Menaria, for respondent No.2. As the main petition has been allowed, stay petition stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR),J. m.asif/-