PRAHLAD RAIGER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. against the order 7. 1. 2008 passed by Additional civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 5, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the application filed by petitioner and respondent no. 2 for compromise has been rejected as the offence under section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable under Section 320 cr. P. C.

(2.) PETITIONER Prahlad Raigar and respondent no. 2 Smt. Mamta Verma are wife and husband having litigation for commission of offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. During the proceedings the parties arrived at a compromise and moved an application for compounding the offence under sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The trial court by order dated 7. 1. 2008 permitted the parties to compromise the matter and acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Section 406 ipc only but refused to attest the compromise sofar as it relates to offence under Section 498-A IPC as same being non-compoundable.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when both the husband and wife have compromised the matter and have resolved their materimonial disputes by mutual settlement out of the court then for securing ends of justice if quashing of the criminal proceedings becomes necessary then Section 320 Cr. P. C. would not be a bar to exercise of power for quashing of proceedings. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Another {2003 R. C. C. (SC) 400 ).