MANISH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against him before Metropolitan Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No. 29/2015 (State v. Manish), whereby the trial court vide order dated 10.07.2015 has attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A IPC as the same is not compoundable.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, the FIR No. 195/2014 has been registered at Women Police Station, Jodhpur Metropolitan against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 323, 498 -A and 504 IPC. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 323 and 498 -A IPC. During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and decide to live separately and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 10.07.2015 allowed the parties to compound the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC, however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.

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