BABITA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal miscellaneous petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the complainant and her in-laws jointly (husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law) for quashing the criminal proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 494/2003, titled as State Vs. Dharmendra Singh and others , pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu arises out of the First Information Report which was lodged by the complainant Babita for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material placed during the course of arguments.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that-petitioner No. 2 Dharmendra is husband of petitioner No. 1 Babita (complainant) and petitioners No. 2 and 3 are respectively her father-in-law and mother-in-law and on account of some non-adjustment and misunderstanding the F.I.R. came to be lodged by the complainant against them but subsequently the complainant Babita and her husband Dharmeddra Singh including father-in-law and mother-in-law have entered into a amicable compromise and all their disputes have been resolved; complainant Babita and her husband Dharmendra have started living together peacefully; to this effect a joint compromise was filed before the trial Court but the same could not be attested because the offences were not compoundable. It is further contended that there are no chances of conviction in the present scenario, rather the pendency of the criminal case would disturb the accused petitioner No. 2 Dharmendra Singh and the petitioner No. 1 Babita in the enjoyment of their peaceful life. The object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Sec. 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was only to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or his other relatives and when the parties have entered into amicable settlement Sec. 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not stand as a bar for quashing the proceedings under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure just to meet the ends of justice. In support of the contentions, reliance is placed on B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386 . Reference is also made on Om Prakash Modi Vs. State, reported in 1995 (3) WLC 302 wherein it was held that if parties have started residing together then there is no purpose to keep the proceedings and the same are liable to be dropped.