Allowed

Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC21 Feb 2018CRLMP/4805/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a miscellaneous petition quashing criminal proceedings arising under sections 498A and 406 IPC. The court held that allowing continuation of the case constituted abuse of process as the parties had settled disputes and the petitioner had performed their part while the complainant unilaterally withdrew the withdrawal application.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the proceedings in Cr. Case No.1446/2011 pending before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.31, Jaipur Metropolitan.

Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 4805 / 2015

¶3

Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Omprakash Sharma, aged about 30 years, By caste Bharmin, R/o B-1, Alkapuri, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶4

Ompraksh Sharma S/o Shri Bholaram Sharma, aged about 60 years, By caste Bharmin, R/o village Bilandpur, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).

¶5

Smt. Meva Devi W/o Omprakash Sharma, aged about 57 years, By caste Bharmin, R/o Village Bilandpur, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶9

---- Respondent.

¶10

Smt. Abhilata Sharma D/o Shri Bhawani Shankar Sharma, aged about 30 years, By caste Bhramin, R/o Plot No.31, Bajrang Vihar, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶11

----Complainant-non-petitioner

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan.

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Godara, PP

¶14

Mr. Ravindra Paliwal.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

¶16

Order

¶17

21/02/2018

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as also learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶19

This misc. petition has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioners to quash and set-aside the order dated 22.08.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.31, Jaipur Metropolitan in Cr. Case No.1446/2011

¶20

(2 of 5)

¶21

[CRLMP-4805/2015]

¶22

titled as State Vs. Ashok and Ors., whereby the application filed by complainant – Smt. Abhilata Sharma on 03.05.2014 was dismissed being not pressed by her.

¶23

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that after the amicable settlement of all the disputes pending between the parties relating to matrimonial ties, an application was filed on 03.05.2014 by the complainant that she does not want to continue the proceedings with regard to FIR No.258/2011, registered at PS Murlipura, Jaipur City(South), which was lodged by her on account of some misunderstanding. After a period of more than one year, the said application was not pressed by the complainant on 28.08.2015, therefore, the learned trial court rejected this application dated 03.05.2014 vide impugned order dated 22.08.2015.

¶24

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the application jointly filed by petitioner Ashok Kumar Sharma and respondent-complainant Smt. Abhilata Sharma before the learned Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan on 27.09.2013. In para 11 of the said application, it has been specifically mentioned that on account of amicable settlement of all the disputes between the parties, Abhilata Sharma would withdraw all the proceedings pending against the petitioner in various courts including Cr. Case No.1446/2011 pending before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.31, Jaipur Metropolitan arising out of FIR No.258/2011, PS Murlipura, Jaipur City (South). Besides this case, Case No.5/2013 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also agreed to be withdrawn.

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

[CRLMP-4805/2015]

¶27

Learned counsel submits that on the basis of this compromise application dated 27.09.2013, learned Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan passed a judgment & decree dated 22.04.2014 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby decree of divorce was granted on the basis of mutual consent. Counsel submits that later on, complainant Abhilata Sharma resiled from the compromise and withdrew the application filed in Cr. Case No.1446/2011 on 03.05.2014 by not pressing it on 22.08.2015, which was unwarranted on her part.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties on 27.09.2013, Cr. Case No.1446/2011 was also to be withdrawn, but since the complainant has resiled from her commitment, the proceedings of case aforesaid deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

¶29

In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments :-

¶30

(I)Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors., reported in (2005) 3 SCC 299.

¶31

(II)Mohd. Shamim & Ors. Vs. Nahid Begum (Smt.) & Anr., reported in (2005) 3 SCC 302.

¶32

(III)Mukesh Jangid Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Cr. Misc. petition No.4737/2014 alongwith 02 connected matters decided on 22.09.2016.

¶33

(IV)Rajesh Khanna & Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3723.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant

¶35

(4 of 5)

¶36

[CRLMP-4805/2015]

¶37

has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that an FIR

¶38

No.427/2012, was got lodged by the petitioner through one of his friends Rinku Sharma at PS JDA, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. After investigation, FR (Negative report) was filed by the police but Rinku Sharma preferred protest petition, upon which cognizance has been taken against complainant – Abhilata Sharma. Counsel for the respondent submits that since this matter had not been withdrawn, the complainant-respondent has withdrawn the application filed by her on 03.05.2014.

¶39

I have considered the arguments advanced by rival sides.

¶40

On perusal of the compromise filed before the Court of learned Family Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan on 27.09.2013, it is found that it was not settled between the parties to withdraw the case arising out of FIR No.427/2012. In view of this, the complainant-respondent was not right in withdrawing the application dated 03.05.2014 on account of continuation of this case. Moreover, this case was not registered by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has resiled from his commitment, on account of which the complainant was justified in withdrawing the application dated 03.05.2014.

¶41

On perusal of judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that once the parties have arrived at the compromise and settled to withdraw various matters pending before the Court, if one of them reslies, despite the fact that the other party has performed his part of settlement, then the proceedings pending before the Court deserves to be quashed and

(5 of 5)

[CRLMP-4805/2015]

set-aside.

The facts and circumstances of the case in hand are similar to those on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶46

Since all the matters arising out of the matrimonial ties between the parties were compromised and application dated 27.09.2013 was filed by them before the learned Family Court with the undertaking of the respondent No.2 to withdraw the Cr. Case No.1446/2011 for the offences under Sections 498A & 406 IPC, this Court is of the view that allowing the proceedings of the aforesaid case will tantamount to abuse of process of law and therefore, it should not be allowed to continue.

¶47

In the result, the misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr. Case No.1446/2011 pending before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.31, Jaipur Metropolitan is quashed and set-aside.

¶48

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J.

¶49

Rm/65

Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

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

Banwari Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Gaurav Gandhi Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Surja through Lr Vs Surja through Lrs and Ors.

Shukhvir Singh Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Bhanwar Singh Vs the Director General of Police and Ors.

Chittarmal Mahant Vs B.O.R.Ajmer and Ors.