1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.PETITION NO.136/2003 Harvinder Vs. State Date of order : 2/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Surendra Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Peeyush Kumar, P.P. for the State. ****** This misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned trial court dated 23.11.2002 by which application submitted by the accused- petitioner for deciding the matter in the light of the compromise between the parties, has been rejected. The present case was initiated at the instance of the complainant on the basis of complaint filed u/s.498A and 406 of IPC. The learned trial court declined the prayer because offence under Section 498A is not compoundable. Shri Surendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court rejected the application despite the accused petitioner also requesting for compounding the matter and quashing the proceedings. Learned trial court rejected the application because it held that consequent offence u/s.498A was not compoundable and offence is made out of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. only. Learned counsel 2 argued that respondent no.2 i.e. Smt. Rajendra Kaur was wife of petitioner and she has deserted the petitioner and now married with some other and has settled with another person in married life and that she does not want any action against the petitioner, and wants to settle the dispute by compromise. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1 , B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and another- (2003) 4 SCC 675 = 2003 RCC (SC) 400, the proceedings against the petitioner for offence u/S.498A IPC in the court below may be quashed. Shri Peeyush Kumar, learned PP though opposed the petition, but was not in a position to dispute the factum of compromise between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the original record of the trial and the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Manoj Sharma supra and B.S. Joshi supra. Hon'ble Apex Court held in Manoj Sharma supra and B.S.Joshi supra that the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable and the High Court in 3 exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings / F.I.R. /complaint and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not affect or limit the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned authorities, the criminal proceedings pending against the accused- petitioner u/S.498A IPC in the court below deserve to be quashed for securing the ends of justice. In the result, this criminal misc. petition u/S.482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in Criminal Case No.2009/1996 in the Court of learned ACJM (F.T.)Digod for offence u/Ss.498A IPC and 406 IPC are hereby quashed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/-