Quashed

Manoj Kumar and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC23 Oct 2021CRLMP/528/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge criminal miscellaneous petition arising under Section 498A IPC, where the parties reached a compromise during pendency. The court accepted the compromise and, relying on Supreme Court precedents, quashed the impugned revision order and proceedings against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 16.01.2013 in Criminal Revision Case No. 358/2012 and all other proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate against the petitioners.

Manoj Kumar and Ors. Vs State and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 528/2013

¶3

Manoj Kumar s/o Chhabeel Chand aged 40 years.

¶4

Chhabeel Chand s/o Kanhaiyalal aged 80 years.

¶5

Smt. Surajdevi w/o Chhabeel chand aged 76 years. All by caste Jain r/o Bhaatiya Paadaa, Dist. Jaisalmer

¶6

Smt. Manisha Jain d/o Chhabeel Chand w/o Sunil Mehta aged 35 years b/c jain r/o Silawat Paadaa, Near Masjid, Jaisalmer 5. Smt. Manju Jain d/o Chhabeel chand w/o Naresh Chhajer aged 38 years b/c Jain r/o Balotara, Dist, Barmer.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan

¶10

Smt. Seema Jain @ Saroj Jain w/o Manoj Jain d/o Kalyanmal Jain b/c Jain r/o 5/85 in front of Dainik Bhaskar Office, Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara.

¶11

complainant

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HM Saraswat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP Mr. KR Bhati for complainant

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶15

Order

¶16

23/10/2021

¶17

The present misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 16.01.2013 passed by the learned Session Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision Case No. 358/2012 arising out of the order dated 03.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 184/2012 by which learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners under Section 498A of IPC.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the present petition, the parties have entered into a compromise. The compromise deed is placed on record, the same

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CRLMP-528/2013]

¶21

is taken on record. He further submits that the fact of compromise is not disputed by the counsel for respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble the 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), the proceedings pending before the trial court may be quashed.

¶22

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the compromise deed.

¶23

It is noted that the parties are present duly identified by the learned respective counsels on being conferred by this Court. Both the parties have agreed that they have settled the matter by way of compromise.

¶24

Since, the parties have entered into a compromise, in light of the judgment of Hon’ble the 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), impugned order dated 16.01.2013 passed by the learned Session Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision Case No. 358/2012 (Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs. State) as well as other proceedings pending before learned Magistrate against all the petitioners are quashed and set aside.

¶25

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶26

167-payal/-

Manoj Kumar and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar and Ors. v. State and Anr.

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

Monu Vs State of Rajasthan

Kavita Vs State

Rajeev Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Gambhir Singh Vs State