Allowed

Prassan Mehta S/O Shri Jitendra Kumar Mehta v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Oct 2021CRLMP/2285/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court permitted the compounding and quashing of proceedings under Section 498-A IPC, allowing the defriement of charges alongside the fighting for a divorce by mutual consent following a compromise between the husband and wife.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC in Criminal Case No.13/2018 arising out of FIR No.169/2017 are compounded, dropped, quashed, and set aside.

Prassan Mehta S/O Shri Jitendra Kumar Mehta Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2285/2020

¶3

Prassan Mehta S/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Mehta, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 46, Santhi, Street, Shri Parumbudur, Kanji Puram, Tamil Nadu.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Smt. Veerwala W/o Shri Prassan Mehta D/o Shri Santosh Chand Jain, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 3/157, Shivam Apartment, Jawahar Nagar, Sector-3, Jaipur, Raj.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vimal Chand Chaudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor Mr.Gaurav Singh Tanwar, Adv. for complainant.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶11

Order

¶12

21/10/2021

¶13

The present criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.02.2020, as the Metropolitan Magistrate No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan City has partly accepted the application of compounding the offence under Section 406 IPC and has refused to drop the charges levelled against the petitioner under Section 498A IPC in Criminal Case No.13/2018 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Prassan Kumar Mehta) in FIR No.169/2017 dated 16.11.2017, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East).

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner Mr.Vimal Chand Chaudhary submitted that the petitioner and the respondent-

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP-2285/2020]

¶17

complainant are husband and wife and due to some matrimonial dispute, the complainant had lodged an FIR under Section 498-A & 406 IPC.

¶18

Learned counsel submitted that both the parties have entered into a compromise and decided to get a decree of divorce by a mutual consent and as per the terms of the compromise the petitioner was also to pay agreed sum between the parties and all the cases were to be dropped.

¶19

Learned counsel submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant-wife is purely of civil nature and as such, the Court below has partly allowed the application by compounding the offence said to be committed under Section 406 of IPC but has refused to compound the offence levelled against the petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that now since both the parties have agreed to seek a divorce by mutual consent and they do not intend to live together anymore, the alleged offence under Section 498-A may also be dropped against the present petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent does not dispute the fact of filing of an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court and he further does not dispute the fact of compromise being entered into between the parties.

¶22

Learned counsel submitted that the complainant also does not wish to prosecute any criminal proceedings against the petitioner and in view of settlement of all the disputes, this Court may pass appropriate order of dropping the charges levelled against the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMP-2285/2020]

¶25

This Court finds that parties have entered into compromise and they have decided to seek divorce by a mutual consent and complainant herself intends to withdraw all the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

¶26

This Court finds that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is basically a matrimonial dispute which can also be termed as a dispute between only two parties and as such, State is not affected by outcome of the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant.

¶27

This Court considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and further the compromise entered into between parties and seeking divorce by a mutual consent, finds that no purpose would be served if the criminal proceedings are continued in the matter and as such, to secure ends of justice, this Court permits that the offence under Section 498-A IPC may also be compounded and the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.13/2018 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Prassan Kumar Mehta) arising out of FIR No.169/2017 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) shall be dropped, quashed & set-aside.

¶28

Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands allowed.

¶29

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶30

Parul Sharma/Ramesh Vaishnav/18

Prassan Mehta S/O Shri Jitendra Kumar Mehta v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prassan Mehta S/O Shri Jitendra Kumar Mehta 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

Rajesh Dayma Son of Shri Dayaram Dayma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Kumar Revadiya S/O Sarjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Mahima Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ajay Sanghi S/O Late Shri Manik Lal Sanghi

Natthi Singh S/O Shri Nihal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Kumar Khandelwal S/O Shri Ram Avtar Khandelwal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Parvej Ahmed S/O Sh. Ahmed Hussain, Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Secretary