1
S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 123/08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 123/08
Chandu @ Chandra Shekhar
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Another
Date of order : 24/04/2009
HON’BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J.
Mr. R.K.Charan for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Joshi, P.P.
Mr. Niranjan Singh for the respondent No.2 complainant.
By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceeding
arising out of FIR No. 133/2006, P.S. Rawatbhata for the offence
under Section 498-A IPC in Criminal Regular Case No.279/2006
pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rawatbhata.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
respondent complainant submit that the parties have
2
S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 123/08
compromised the matter and complainant does not want to
make any statement against the petitioner. Since the parties are
husband and wife and therefore, they have amicably settled the
matter and no evidence is likely to come against the petitioner.
In B.S.Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and
Another, JT 2003 (3) SC 277, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as under:-
“14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A containing section 498-A in the Indian
Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman
by her husband or by relatives of her husband.
Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a
husband and his relatives who harass or torture the
wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful
demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would
be counter productive and would act against interests
of women and against the object for which this
provision was added. There is every likelihood that
non-exercise of inherent power to quash the
proceedings to meet the ends of justice would
prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the
object of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code.
Keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in B.S.Joshi’s case (supra) in my view, no useful purpose
would be served in allowing the criminal proceeding to continue
any further when the parties have compromised the matter and
no evidence is likely to come against the petitioner.
3
S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 123/08
Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed. The
criminal proceeding in Criminal Regular Case No.279/2006
pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rawatbhata, arising
out of FIR No.133/06 P.S. Rawatbhata, is quashed.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
rp
4
S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 123/08
S.B.Cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 215/2008
In
S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 123/08
Date of Order : 24.04.2009
HON’BLE MR. H.R.PANWAR,J.
Mr. R.K.Charan for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Joshi, P.P.
Mr. Niranjan Singh for the respondent No.2 complainant.
Since the criminal misc. petition itself has been
allowed, the stay petition stands disposed of.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
rp