The High Court allowed a correction to a previous order filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., changing the stated fact that the parties were living together to living separately after a compromise.
Order dated 13.12.2019 was corrected to state that petitioner and respondent no.2 are living separately instead of living together happily as husband and wife.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Appli No. 1/2020
Gangadhar Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 29 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Ward No. 32, Ratangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deendayal Chitlangi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Muktiyar Khan, Pp
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order
04/01/2020
Instant misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the petitioner for correction in order dated 13.12.2019 passed by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.5753/2019, whereby, the misc. petition was allowed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently in the order dated 13.12.2019, the fact has wrongly been mentioned that “after compromise, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are living together happily as husband and wife” whereas, the correct fact is that “after compromise, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are living separately”. Therefore, it is prayed that necessary correction be made in the order dated 13.12.2019.
(2 of 2)
[CRLMA-1/2020]
In view of submissions made and for reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.
It is therefore ordered that in the order dated 13.12.2019, wherever the fact is mentioned that “after compromise, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are living together happily as husband and wife”, the same be read as that “after compromise, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are living separately”. To that limited extent, the order dated 13.12.2019 stands corrected.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
73-MS/-
Gangadhar Sharma
State Of Rajasthan
Smt. Archna Sharma
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
