ANINDO BANERJEE 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 a prayer that the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No. 89/2009 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Anindo Banerjee & Ors. (arising out of FIR No. 104/1998 of Police Station, Sardarpura, District Jodhpur) may be quashed qua the petitioner. The trial court vide order dated 24.10.2013 has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 494 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. 104/1998 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Sardarpura, District Jodhpur. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A and 494 IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending for the aforesaid offences. 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, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 24.10.2013 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC, however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offence punishable under Section 498 -A IPC.

(3.) 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 Section 494 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, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have filed a joint application under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing Civil Original Case No. 220/2012, wherein the Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the family court') vide order dated 21.02.2013 has passed a divorce decree. 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.