Allowed

Akshat Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC26 Sept 2018CRLMP/3314/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petition invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR under Section 498-A IPC. The court held that the matrimonial dispute had been resolved via compromise, justifying the quashing of proceedings despite the offence typically being non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR u/s 498-A IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings was quashed.

Akshat Bhandari Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3314/2018

¶3

Akshat Bhandari S/o Shri Sushil Bhandari, R/o A-1, Vijay Nagar, New Pali Road, Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5359/2017

¶10

Akshat Bhandari S/o Sushil Bhandari B/c Oswal, R/o A-1, Vijay Nagar, New Pali Road, Jodhpur.

¶11

----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p. 2. Pragya Modi W/o Akshat Bhandari D/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Modi B/c Oswal, R/o C- 26, Dev Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora & Mr. Abhisar Bhanu For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuria, PP Mr. Mahendra Goyal for respondent No. 2

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶13

Order

¶14

26/09/2018

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5359/2017:-

¶16

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dt. 23.09.2017 whereby the

¶17

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-3314/2018]

¶18

Metropolitan Magistrate No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan partially accepted the compromise for offence under Section 406 IPC, but rejected the same qua offence under Section 498 A IPC on the ground that the said offence is non compoundable.

¶19

In the present case, Sh. S.S. Hora, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Mahendra Goyal, appearing for respondent No. 2, have submitted that the compromise arrived between the parties is subsisting today. They have vouchsafed the factum of compromise.

¶20

Ms. Pragya Modi, complainant-respondent No.2, is present in court. She has been identified by her counsel Shri Mahendra Goyal.

¶21

Ms. Pragya Modi has stated that her marriage with Akshat Bhandari was solemnized as per Hindu customs and rites on 28.12.2005 at Jodhpur. It is further submitted that one month before on 27.11.2005 parties had also performed civil marriage. Ms. Pragya Modi has stated that no child was born out of the wedlock.

¶22

In the present case, because of the circumstances beyond the control, Ms. Pragya Modi was compelled to lodge FIR No. 145/2015 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) for offences under Sections 323, 406 and 498-A IPC. During pendency of proceedings, memorandum of understanding (Annexure-3) was arrived between the parties. Consequently, compromise was presented before the trial court. As noted above, the compromise was partially accepted qua offence under Section 406 IPC, but was not accepted qua offence under Section 498-A IPC.

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CRLMP-3314/2018]

¶25

Today, Shri S.S. Hora learned counsel for the petitioner, has handed over Demand Draft of Rs. 50,00,000/- drawn in favour of respondent No. 2 Ms. Pragya Modi. Photocopy of the Demand Draft attested by Shri Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is taken on record.

¶26

On joint submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, undertaking filed by respondent No.2 before this court and scanned copy of undertaking executed by the petitioner before Graham John Bruce Justice of the Peace Western Australia is also taken on record as Shri S.S. Hora has assured this court regarding authenticity of the undertaking executed by the petitioner. Shri. S.S. Hora has submitted that the said undertaking has been received by him through e-mail.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, to contend that in matrimonial matters, to bring families at peace, this court while invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings even for noncompoundable offences.

¶28

Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the matrimonial dispute has been resolved by the parties by way of compromise, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR alongwith all subsequent proceedings is quashed.

¶29

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3314/2018:-

¶30

Shri S.S. Hora learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since by a separate order of even date the impugned FIR alongwith all subsequent proceedings has been

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CRLMP-3314/2018]

¶33

quashed, present petition has been rendered infructuous and may

¶34

be disposed of as such.

¶35

Ordered accordingly.

¶36

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶37

Govind/ashu/45-46

Akshat Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshat Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Shrimal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Tarachand Jain Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajiv Gupta Finance Head Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shiv Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Santosh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Priyanka Saini and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.