IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Lokesh Pancholi & Ors. Vs. Smt. Shaili Sharma & anr. SB CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.705/2009. UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. DATE OF ORDER: 1st May, 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Sharad Purohit for the petitioners. Mr. N.R. Saran PP for the State. Mr. S.S. Ola for the respondent no.1. By this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed to allow this criminal misc. petition and to quash the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.26/2005 (State Vs. Lokesh Pancholi & Ors.) pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, No.13, Jaipur city, Jaipur. Briefly stated, the facts are that an FIR No.140/2004 was lodged in the police station Mahila Thana, North, Jaipur by Smt. Shaili Sharma for the offence udner sections 498A and 406 IPC. After investigation charge-sheet was filed before the competent court and the petitioners were arrayed as accused for committing the offence under sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The petitioners compromised the matter in between themselves. Petitioner Lokesh Pancholi is the husband of Smt. Shaili Sharma and they both decided to get divorce and a decree of divorce was issued on 21.3.2009 and they have settled the matter in between themselves. A compromise arrived at between the parties was filed before the trial court along with an application to compound the offence. That application was rejected vide order dated 19.2.2009 observing therein that the offences are not compoundable. Hence, the present misc. petition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for both sides. Both the learned counsel state that they do not want to continue the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court. Both the parties are present and they are not willing to continue the proceedings pending before the trial court. In view of the above compromise, it appears that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court. In the case of Saleem & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.- RLW 1998 (1) (Raj.) 202, it has been held that the court has inherent powers to quash the proceedings, though the offence is not compoundable. Inherent powers can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the offence u/s 498A is not compoundable as per section 320 Cr.P.C., but the court is competent to quash the proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In another case in Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan- 1999 Cr.L.J. 10, this court quashed the proceedings under section 498-A IPC in view of the compromise between the parties exercising its powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and proceedings of criminal case no.137/1997 under section 498A IPC pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate no.2, Jodhpur and the order of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated 12.6.1998 were quashed. In Madhavrao Jinwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1998)1 SCC 692, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident and it becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. Recently, in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana & anr.- 2003(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 579, it was held by the Apex Court as under: “We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 would not be a bar in exercise of the power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.” After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that a decree of divorce has already been issued and also considering that compromise was filed before the trial court, I deem it proper in exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court requires to be quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in case no.26/2005 (State Vs. Lokesh Pancholi and others) before the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.13, Jaipur city, Jaipur for the offence under sections 498A and 406 IPC are hereby quashed. (S.P. PATHAK,J) BBLM