S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 141/2017. Case: Himmat Singh and Ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court

Case Number:S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 141/2017
Party Name:Himmat Singh and Ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: B.M. Srivastav, Adv. and For Respondents: M.S. Panwar, PP
Judges:Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Issue:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 320, 482; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13B; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 323, 342, 354, 406, 498A
Judgement Date:February 13, 2017
Court:Rajasthan High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

  1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against them before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Criminal Case No. 140/2014, arising out of FIR No. 98/2014 of Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 342 and 354 IPC wherein the trial court vide order dated 7.1.2017 has attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 323 and 342 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 354 IPC as the same are not compoundable.

  2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant respondent No. 2 has lodged an FIR No. 98/2014 at the Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Jodhpur against the petitioners alleging that she and the petitioner No. 1 got married on 12.2.2011 and from the said wedlock, no issue was born. After marriage, as some matrimonial disputes arose between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2, the aforesaid FIR was lodged by the complainant against the petitioners.

  3. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 342 and 354 IPC in the court concerned wherein the trial is pending against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners may be terminated. The learned trial court vide order dated 7.1.2017 allowed the parties to compound the offences under Sections 406, 323 and 342 I.P.C., however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offences under Sections 498-A and 354 I.P.C.

  4. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the said proceedings against them.

  5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the petitioner No. 1 have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioners have been acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 406, 323 and 342 I.P.C., there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offences...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL