Allowed

Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Nov 2019CRLMP/2902/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a miscellaneous petition invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. Relying on a compromise settled between the complainant and accused parties and a prior order, the Court discharged petitioners Usha Garg and Vipin @ Banti of offences under sections 427, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Petitioners Usha Garg and Vipin @ Banti discharged of offences under Sections 427, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S. B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2902/2019

¶3

Vinod Kumar S/o Khyali Ram, Aged About 49 Years, By Caste Yadav, R/o Manniwali, Sadul Shahar, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan

¶4

Usha Garg W/o Maanmal, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste Agarwal R/o Ward No. 13, Sadul Shahar, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan

¶5

Vipin @ Banti S/o Maanmal, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Agarwal, R/o Ward No. 13, Sadul Shahar, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

05/11/2019

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have entered into the compromise as the transaction between the petitioner No. 1/complainant – Vinod Kumar and the accusedpetitioner Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Usha Garg and Vipin @ Banti, respectively, has been settled through compromise and it is borne out from the compromise that the petitioner No. 1/complainant – Vinod Kumar is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.

¶15

Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

¶16

M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296].

¶17

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-2902/2019]

¶18

It is also submitted that upon the aforementioned compromise, the learned court below vide Order dated 02.03.2019, has verified the compromise between the parties to the extent of the offences under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC.

¶19

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the dispute between them has been amicably settled and therefore, the petitioner No. 1/complainant does not want to pursue the matter.

¶20

In view of compromise arrived at between the parties as well as the aforesaid Order dated 02.03.2019 of the learned court below and applying the ratio in decision of in the case of State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296] , I deem it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are discharged of the offences under Sections 427, 467, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. as well, in relation to Criminal Regular Case No. 34/2012 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadul Shahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶22

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶23

43-Inder/-

Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.R. Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shamshad Ali Vs Devi Lal and Anr.

Parvez @ Sonu Vs State

Ravina Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanif Khan Vs Hakam Ali

Sonali @ Hina Vs State of Rajasthan