Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Nov 2021CRLMP/2088/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court discharged petitioners from the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The court accepted a compromise between parties, relying on Supreme Court precedents, and exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash pending proceedings despite the offence being non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners discharged of offence under Section 498-A IPC in relation to Criminal Case No.323/2016.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2095/2021

¶3

Kuldeep Kumar S/o Badri Prasad, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o House 226 Gh, Ghotewale Balaji Mandir Ke Pass, Mehra Nagar Second, 6-E, Chhoti Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶4

Badri Prasad S/o Hariram, Aged About 65 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o House 226 Gh, Ghotewale Balaji Mandir Ke Pass, Mehra Nagar Second, 6-E, Chhoti Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶5

Reshma W/o Badri Prasad, Aged About 60 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o House 226 Gh, Ghotewale Balaji Mandir Ke Pass, Mehra Nagar Second, 6-E, Chhoti Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶9

Leela D/o Taga Ram, B/c Bheel, R/o A-5, Roop Rajat Enclave, Ganpati Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2088/2021

¶13

Sunil Kumar S/o Badri Prasad, Aged About 39 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o House 226 Gh, Ghotewale Balaji Mandir Ke Pass, Mehra Nagar Second, 6-E, Chhoti Sri Ganganagar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar.

¶14

Badri Prasad S/o Hariram, Aged About 65 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o House 226 Gh, Ghotewale Balaji Mandir Ke Pass, Mehra Nagar Second, 6-E, Chhoti Sri Ganganagar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar.

¶15

Reshma W/o Badri Prasad, Aged About 60 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o House 226 Gh, Ghotewale Balaji Mandir Ke Pass, Mehra Nagar Second, 6-E, Chhoti Sri Ganganagar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar.

¶16

----Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CRLMP-2095/2021]

¶21

Radha D/o Taga Ram, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Bheel, R/o A-5, Roop Rajat Enclave, Ganpati Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur.

¶22

----Respondents

¶23

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati, PP

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶25

Order

¶26

10/11/2021

¶27

It is stated at the Bar that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and it is borne out from the compromise that the complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.

¶28

Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296] & Ram Gopal and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489 and 1488 of 2012 decided on 29.09.2021).

¶29

It is also submitted that upon the aforementioned compromise, the learned court below vide order dated 15.03.2021, has verified the compromise between the parties to the extent of the offence under Sections 323 and 406 of IPC and has discharged the petitioners of the offence under Section 323 and 406 of IPC. However, the learned court below has declined to verify the compromise as regards the offence under Section 498-A of IPC on the ground that the said offence is non-compoundable.

¶30

That the counsel for the parties are in agreement that the

¶31

(3 of 3)

¶32

[CRLMP-2095/2021]

¶33

dispute between them has been amicably settled and therefore, the complainant-respondent No.2 does not want to pursue the matter. The fact of compromise is established from the documents produced on record.

¶34

In view of compromise arrived at between the parties as well as the aforesaid order dated 15.03.2021 of the learned court below and applying the ratio in decision of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296] & Ram Gopal and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489 and 1488 of 2012 decided on 29.09.2021) , I deem it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶35

Accordingly, the present misc. petitions are allowed and the petitioners are discharged of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC as well, in relation to Criminal Case No.323/2016 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metro.

¶36

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶37

79-80-payal/-

Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Subhash Vs Rajni Lodha

Teeja Kanwar Vs State

Sanjay Tak Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt Munni Devi Deora Vs State

Um Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Murti Devi Vs State