- (1.) THESE two petitions are preferred to quash the First Information Reports filed against the respective petitioners.
(2.) THE factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that at the instance of Smt. Chitrakala, a criminal case was lodged against Shri Ram Narain, Smt. Parwati and Shri Devi Lal, on 2.8.2010 (FIR No.132/2010) at Mahila Police Station, District Hanumangarh contemplating offences punishable under Sections 420, 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC. An another FIR bearing No.86/2010 was lodged at Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur on 19.2.2010 at the instance of Shri Devi Lal against Smt. Chitrakala, Krishna Kumar, Sarjit Kumar and Rajesh Kumar contemplating the offences punishable under Sections 379, 406 and 420 IPC. In both misc. petitions, applications are preferred by the complainants stating therein that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved, thus, they want to get the FIRs filed by them quashed, but looking to the fact that the offences alleged being non-compoundable, they have to face the entire trial. Heard counsel for the parties. Shri Devi Lal?petitioner No.3 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1139/2010 and respondent No.2 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1490/2010 is husband of Smt. Chitrakala?respondent No.2 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1139/2010 and petitioner No.1 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1490/2010. The FIRs in question were filed by them including certain other relatives due to matrimonial disputes. Both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and just to get rid from criminal cases. They want to get the FIRs filed by them quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. [2003(42) Crimes 284 (SC)] held that the High court while exercising its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint pertaining to an offences that is non-compoundable. The relevant portion of the judgment referred above is quoted as under :- "13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao V. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. 2000(3) SCC 693, are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their 'young' days in chasing their cases in different courts. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing chapter XX-A containing section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from setting earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings on FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the Code."
(3.) IN the instant matter too the offences under investigation are non-compoundable but the parties have reached at an amicable settlement and that warrants quashing of the FIRs impugned to get the matter compounded. Such compounding of the allegations is desired to resolve matrimonial disputes. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra), I deem it appropriate to quash FIR No.132/2010 pending investigation at Mahila Police Station, District Hanumangarh and FIR No.86/2010 pending investigation at Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur. The misc. petitions stand disposed of, accordingly.;