SURESH JHARIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/petitioners have come to this Court under section 482 of CrPC to extend them acquittal from the charges of offence punishable under section 498A of IPC with the averments that in pendency of the impugned criminal case No. 9929/10, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Jabalpur. the respondent Nq.2. has entered into compromise with the applicants and the same was in the trial Court filed under section 320 of CrPC. On consideration vide order dated 5.11.2012 the same was allowed till the extent of the offence of sections 294 and 506B of IPC as the same are made compundable under the law and pursuant to that the applicants have been acquitted from such charges, but such compromise has been rejected by the trial Court till the extent of the offence of section'498A of IPC stating that such section is not made compoundable under the law.

(2.) True it is that the offence of section 498A of IPC is not made compoundable under section 320 of CrPC, hence the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application of the compromise filed by the parties till the extent of offence of section 498A of IPC, but at this stage under the inherent powers enumerated under section 482 of CrPC, the offence of section 498A of IPC along with it's First Information Report in the light of the factum of compromise could be quashed by the Court. My such approach is based on a law laid down by the apex Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2003 AIR(SC) 1386in which it was held as under: -

(3.) It is apparent from the impugned order of the trial Court annexed with the petition that the respondent No. 2 has entered into compromise with the applicants voluntarily without any undue influence or coercion so till this extent, no further verification is required.