Allowed

Nathu Lal Verma v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC25 Jul 2019CRLMP/2128/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings based on a settlement reached through the Mediation Cell. The court found a compromise was effected, unconditional demands were satisfied via a demand draft, and the complainant agreed to return documents and discontinue complaints.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's C.M.P. allowed; proceedings in Regular Case No.756/2016 and FIR No.325/2012 quashed; original documents to be returned to petitioner; stay application disposed.

Nathu Lal Verma Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2128/2018

¶3

Nathu Lal Verma S/o Late Shri Rampal Verma B/c Raiger, R/o Plot No. 12, Shriramnagar, Out Side Of Malpura Gate, Diggi Malpura Road, Snaganer, Distt. Jaipur Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶7

Mangaram S/o Shri Shambhumal B/c Sindhi, R/o Plot No. 58, Gali No. 02, Rishi Galav Nagar, Galta Gate, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Amit Kumar Jain
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma
For State	:	Mr. F.R. Meena, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Order

¶12

25/07/2019

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of proceedings pending in Criminal Regular Case No.756/2016.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the matter was referred to the Mediation Cell. In mediation, parties have entered into a settlement and a Demand Draft of Rs.40,935/- has been given by the petitioner. The original Demand Draft is available in the file.

¶15

Complainant along with his counsel is present in Court who has not disputed the fact that parties have amicably settled the dispute before the Mediation Cell.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMP-2128/2018]

¶18

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that as per the terms of compromise, complainant have to return the original allotment letters, site plan and receipts of Plot No. 52 & 53 to the petitioner. It is informed by complainant- Mangaram that these documents are with the Trial Court.

¶19

I have considered the contentions.

¶20

In view of the fact that parties have entered into compromise, the Demand Draft of Rs.40,935/- is handed over to the complainant. Complainant has no objection to the petitioner taking the documents pertaining to Plot No. 52 & 53 from the Court and does not want to continue the criminal proceedings, I deem it proper to allow the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

¶21

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly allowed. Proceedings pending before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan in Regular Case No.756/2016 and FIR No.325/2012 registered at Police Station J.D.A. stand quashed.

¶22

Trial Court is directed to return the original documents to the accused-petitioner.

¶23

Stay application stands disposed.

¶24

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶25

Simple Kumawat /169

Nathu Lal Verma v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathu Lal Verma v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nahar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Habiban Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mahesh Chand Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Laxman S/O Mishrilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Maheshwari S/O Shri Arjun Maheshwari B/C Maheshwari Vs State of Rajasthan

Pankaj Mathur S/O Shri Chand Bihari Mathur B/C Kayastha Vs State of Rajasthan