Allowed

Mukesh Kumar Saini S/O Shri Anandilal Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 May 2019CRLMP/2662/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings in a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC where the parties had amicably settled the dispute in mediation. The non-petitioner respondent, being the complainant, did not object to the quashing. The court allowed the petition despite the associated offence under Section 406 IPC being compounded.

What did the court decide?

Procedures pending in Case No.72/2017 arising out of F.I.R. No.82/2016 registered at Mahila Thana, Alvar, were quashed.

Mukesh Kumar Saini S/O Shri Anandilal Saini Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2662/2019

¶3

Mukesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Anandilal Saini, By Caste Mali Resident Of Mahatab Singh Ka Nohara Police Station Kotwali Alwar District Alwar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

Sarita Kataria D/o Shri Tarachand W/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Saini, By Caste Mali Resident Of 26 Aawlawala Bag Vivekanand Nagar Police Station Aravali Vihar Alwar District Alwar.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Complainant : Mr. Vivek Gaur Non-Petitioner No.2(s) For State : Mr. Arvind Bhadhu, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

08/05/2019

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for quashing of proceedings pending in Case No.72/2017 arising out of F.I.R. No.82/2016 registered at Mahila Thana, Alwar.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that parties have amicably settled their dispute in the mediation proceedings and compromise was filed before the concerned Court. Concerned Court has compounded the case for offence under Section 406 I.P.C but as the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is non compoundable, petitioner had to approach this Court.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMP-2662/2019]

¶17

Complainant-non-Petitioner No.2 is present in person in the Court who has not disputed the fact of parties having amicably settled the dispute in mediation proceedings and has no objection to the quashing of proceedings. He does not want to press the criminal complaint and has no objection to the quashing of proceedings.

¶18

I have considered the contentions.

¶19

In view of the fact that parties have settled their dispute, I deem it proper to quash the proceedings pending in Case No.72/2017 arising out of F.I.R. No.82/2016 pending before Judicial Magistrate No.4, Alwar.

¶20

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶21

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶22

Amit Kumar/213

Mukesh Kumar Saini S/O Shri Anandilal Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Saini S/O Shri Anandilal Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad @ Raju Vs Dwarka Prasad Mishra

M/S Mahi International Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Govind Johari Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Yashveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mohammed Rafiq Rather S/O Gulab Mohammed Rather B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Kumar Meena S/O Shri Laxmi Narayan Meena B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan