MOHIT MALPANI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C jointly by the petitioners and respondent No.2 seeking quashment of the FIR registered at Crime No.06/2020 at police station Mahila Thana, Indore and the subsequent criminal proceedings in RCT No.195/2020 pending before the JMFC, Indore for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of the IPC and under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by virtue of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

(2.) The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 28.04.2015 under the Hindu rites and rituals. The petitioners No.2 to 5 are mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 respectively. A matrimonial dispute arose between the parties and the respondent No.2 filed a written complaint on 13.01.2020 alleging cruelty and harassment by the present petitioners which has been registered at Crime No.06/2020 in police station Mahila Thana, Indore for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of the IPC and under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police after conducting investigation has filed the Challan before the JMFC in Criminal Case RCT No.195/2020 which is pending for adjudication. However, during the pendency of the criminal case the parties have entered into a compromise and settled the dispute between them and a compromise deed (Annexure P/4) has been executed between them. After the compromise an application under section 320(2) Cr.P.C was filed before the Court on 14.09.2020 seeking quashment of the criminal case, however, as the offence under section 498-A IPC is not compoundable and the trial Court lacks the jurisdiction to quash the charges, petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana and ors. vs. State of Haryana and another (2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 1157; B.S Joshi vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675; Hemraj vs. State of M.P 2005 (2) MPHT 196 and Ankush Golecha vs. State of M.P 2009 (2) MPHT 470.

(3.) Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 has filed no objection and consent (IA No.7505/20, IA No.7506/20 and IA No.7567/20) for quashment of the FIR as well as the criminal proceedings on the basis of the said compromise.