RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 28. 7. 2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa whereby cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and also against the order dated 25. 3. 2003 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) Pilani issuing warrant of arrest against the accused petitioners.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this petition and necessary for its disposal are that the non-petitioner No. 2 got an FIR registered at PS Pilani against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A, 46, 223, 500 and 504 IPC in the year 1998 wherein FR was submitted after investigation. THE learned Magistrate vide order dated 28. 7. 2000 took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498a IPC. THE non-petitioner No. 2 simultaneously filed a divorce petition against petitioner No. 1 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 in the Court of learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu which was decreed exparte in favour of non-petitioner No. 2 on 8. 9. 1999 dissolving the marriage between her and her husband Rajesh. Non-petitioner No. 2 filed a protest petition in the FR without disclosing the factum of divorce having taken place between the parties. She also instituted a case under Section 125 Crpc for maintenance wherein also an exparte order granting maintenance was passed against petitioner No. 1 on 31. 8. 1999. But thereafter, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement on 15. 12. 2000 vide which it was agreed that on payment of Rs. 45,000/- by petitioner No. 1 to non-petitioner No. 2, the entire dispute shall stand compromised and settled and no further case shall be instituted by her. As per the aforesaid compromise, petitioner No. 1 paid Rs. 45,000/- to non-petitioner No. 2. THE case under Section 125 (3) Cr. P. C. was dropped on the application of non-=petitioner No. 2. But she has not withdrawn the instant case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC although, she has remarried and is living with her present husband peacefully. It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the compromise between the parties, the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 460/03 pending in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilani may be quashed in the interest of justice as the same tantamounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the parties have arrived at a compromise and pursuant to the compromise a lumpsum amount of Rs. 45,000/- has been paid by petitioner No. 1 to non-petitioner No. 2. IT is admitted that the parties have now come to compromise and have settled their disputes out of court. A compromise-deed has also been placed on record of this file.