1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R Prahlad Raiger vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.361/2008 Date of Order :::::: January 15, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. D.S.Bagadia for the petitioner. Miss. Manju Dave, P.P. Mr. Ishwar Jain for respondent no.2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order 7.1.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No.5, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the application filed by petitioner and respondent no.2 for compromise has been rejected as the offence under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Petitioner Prahlad Raigar and respondent no.2 Smt. Mamta Verma are wife and husband having litigation for commission of offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. During the proceedings the parties arrived at a compromise and moved an application for compounding the offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The trial court by order dated 7.1.2008 permitted the parties to compromise the matter and acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Section 406 IPC only but refused to attest the compromise sofar as it relates to offence under Section 498-A IPC as same being non-compoundable. 2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned P.P. and learned counsel for respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when both the husband and wife have compromised the matter and have resolved their materimonial disputes by mutual settlement out of the court then for securing ends of justice if quashing of the criminal proceedings becomes necessary then Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to exercise of power for quashing of proceedings. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Another {2003 R.C.C.(SC) 400). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the material available on record as well as the case law cited at the bar. In the case of B.S.Joshi (supra) their Lordhsips of the Supreme Court have specifically held that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the FIR or the complaint or the criminal proceedings even though the offence may not be compoundable under the Cr.P.C. In the instant case the parties, admittedly, are husband and wife and have compromised the matter by mutual settlement out of the court in relation to Section 498-A IPC. In such circumstances, having regard to the compromise and the relation between the parties it is justified that the proceedings pending between them be quashed on the basis of the compromise. 3 Consequently, this misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings in criminal case no.110/2004 State of Rajasthan vs. Prahlad, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Jr. Div.) No.5, Jaipur District are hereby quashed. (BHANWAROO KHAN),J. bairwa