Disposed

Nagendra Parihar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Nov 2021CRLMP/5143/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash an FIR under Section 498-A IPC on the ground of limitation. The court directed the trial court to consider the limitation plea during charge framing and drop the offence if applicable. The main petition is disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed trial court to consider limitation plea during charge framing and drop offence if barred; main petition disposed of.

Nagendra Parihar Vs State of Rajasthan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 2)

¶2

[CRLMP-5143/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5143/2021

¶5

Nagendra Parihar S/o Moti Lal Parihar, Aged About 33 Years, 69/3, Behind New Kohinoor, Masuriya, Deonagar, Jodhpur City West, Jodhpur.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

Vandana W/o Nagendra Parihar, 238, Ramdev Road, Masuriya, Deonagagar, Jodhpur City West, Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratish Bhatnagar For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶13

Order

¶14

12/11/2021

¶15

The present misc. petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR No.84/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City West, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 494 IPC.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 23.11.2011. Thereafter, the parties got separated and are living separately from 30.04.2018. Admittedly, the FIR was filed on 2.7.2021. Thus, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kalra Vs. Shilpika Kalra & Ors. In Criminal Appeal No.416 of 2020 decided on 24.4.2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CRLMP-5143/2021]

¶19

“As regards, the finding recorded by the High Court in respect of complaint/FIR filed under Section 498A IPC, we are of the firm opinion that the same does not call for interference. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the FIR filed in this regard in 2015 was time barred, having been filed much more than three years after the separation of Manish Kalra (husband) and Shilpika Kalra (wife) and the filing of the divorce petition by the husband, both in 2009. In the facts of the case, the reasons given by the High Court for quashing the proceedings under section 498A IPC are justified and do not call for interference by this Court.”

¶20

Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioner may kindly be quashed as barred by limitation.

¶21

In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that since the matter is pending consideration before the learned trial court, the trial court is directed to consider the facts enumerated hereinabove at the time of framing of the charge and if the trial court comes to the conclusion that the offence under Section 498A IPC is not made out being barred by limitation, then same may be dropped at the time of framing of charge.

¶22

The misc. petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶24

28-praveen/-

Nagendra Parihar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Parihar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shambhu Lal Vs State

Sirajudeen Vs State

Parasmal Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Hawa Kanwar Vs State

Bhagwan Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Chakrawarti Vs State of Rajasthan