High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC pending before Civil Judge, Jaipur, citing a compromise between the petitioner and the complainant wife.
FIR in Criminal Case No.59/2020 and consequential criminal proceedings were quashed.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1757/2021
Amit Pareek S/o Shri Gokul Chand Pareek, Aged About 34 Years, R/o B-82, Sector-47, Noeda (U.p)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. N. Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP Mr. Satyam Khandelwal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
09/07/2021
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.59/2020 pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent submitted that compromise has been arrived between the parties and they have settled their dispute.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court had attested compromise under Section 406 IPC. Offence under Section 498-A IPC is non-compoundable. So, criminal proceedings pending between them, be set aside.
(2 of 2)
[CRLMP-1757/2021]
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the complainant acknowledging the
factum of compromise between the parties and submitted that he has no objection if the FIR in question and consequential criminal proceeding are quashed.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
A perusal of the material on record shows that the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled by them. In view of compromise and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 , this Court deems it just and proper to quash the FIR in question and consequential criminal proceeding.
Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.59/2020 pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur is quashed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/102
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC should be quashed in light of a compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabApplied¶22
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh Vs. State of PunjabApplied¶22
Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Pareek
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
Smt. Apeksha Pareek
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
