RAMBABU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant non-petitioner Smt. Babli had filed a complaint in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate Laxmangarh, against the accused- petitioners for offence under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. at Police Station Khedli, where a formal FIR No. 63/95 under the aforesaid Sections was registered and after investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 Ram Babu and the complainant-respondent No. 2 Smt. Babli subsequently entered into a compromise since both had agreed to settle the matter as they were not concerned with each other, since a decree of divorce by consent has already been passed, putting an end to their marriage. The compromise petition was subsequently also filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Kathumar, indicating to withdraw the case filed by Smt. Babli against the petitioner Ram Babu and his relatives. The learned Magistrate, however, refused to record the compromise since the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 Penal Code are not compoundable. While no fault can be found with the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to record a compromise in regard to the Sections which are admittedly not compoundable, yet looking into the facts and the circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration that the litigation is not likely to result into conviction as the complainant will not turn-up to depose in support of the case lodged by her against the petitioner No. 1 no purpose will be served by keeping the matter hanging. The entire proceeding in regard to the complaint case thus is bound to result into a futile exercise of the legal remedies resulting into vexatious proceeding. Learned Counsel has also cited an authority of this Court reported in RCC Nov. 1995 Page 618 delivered in the matter of Sahoo Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan wherein a Learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view that even if the offences are not compoundable, the Court under its inherent powers can quash the proceeding in the interest of justice. The instant case is also one such case which gives rise to a situation where allowing the proceeding to drag on between a husband and wife, who agreed to live separately, and where the wife has agreed not to pursue the Criminal Case, is bound to result into a futile litigation as already recorded here in above.

(2.) I, therefore, deem it appropriate to quash the FIR No. 63/98 of Police Station Khedli, and consequently the Criminal Case 592/96 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate Kathumar, will also stand quashed.

(3.) The Revision Petition thus stands disposed of.