RANJEET BHATI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 419/2009 (arising out of FIR No. 23/2009 dated 02.04.2009 of Police Station, Mahila Thana, Pali), whereby the trial court vide order dated 03.06.2014 has attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC but declined to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A IPC.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, the Police Station, Mahila Thana, Pali has registered an FIR No. 23/2009 against the petitioners. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for offence under Sections 406, 323 and 498 -A IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence. 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 03.06.2014 allowed the parties to compound the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC, however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offence punishable under Section 498 -A IPC.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the complainant -respondent No. 2 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioners have already been acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A IPC. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 have decided to live separately by mutual consent and in this regard an application under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has already been filed by the petitioner No. 1 and the same is pending adjudication before the Family Court, Pali. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.