JINENDRA VAYA @ VISHAL VAYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

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 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.297/2017 rising out of FIR No.34/2017 of Women Police Station, Udaipur, whereby the trial court vide order dated 13.07.2018 has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 406 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.34/2017 was registered at Women Police Station, Udaipur against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. 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 13.07.2018 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

(3.) The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him. 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 406 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 together happily by mutual consent. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence punishable punishable under Section 498-A IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.