Allowed

Ankit Mehta v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Nov 2021CRLMP/5666/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 498-A IPC based on a compromise between the parties and reliance on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The present miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner is discharged of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

Ankit Mehta Vs State of Rajasthan — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5666/2021

¶3

Ankit Mehta S/o Rajkumar Mehta, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 12, Sanjay Colony, Rata Khet, Malla Talai, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶4

Rajkumar Mehta S/o Govind Mehta, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 12, Sanjay Colony, Rata Khet, Malla Talai, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶5

Smt. Suman Mehta W/o Rajkumar Mehta, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 12, Sanjay Colony, Rata Khet, Malla Talai, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

Smt. Dhairyata @ Dheeru Baya W/o Shri Ankit Mehta, D/ o Late Shri Kapil Kumar Vaya, R/o 12-A Bhopalpura, Opposite J.k. Hospital, Udaipur (Raj)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	:	Ms. Deepika Purohit
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
		Mr. D.S. Sodha,for the complainant

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶13

Order

¶14

09/11/2021

¶15

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.

¶16

Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMP-5666/2021]

¶19

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).

¶20

It is also submitted that upon the aforementioned compromise, the learned court below vide order dated 3.9.2021, has verified the compromise between the parties to the extent of the offence under Section 406 of IPC and discharged the petitioner of the offence under Section 406 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.

¶21

The counsel for the parties are in agreement that the dispute between them has been amicably settled and therefore, the complainant-respondent No.2 does not want to pursue the matter.

¶22

In view of compromise arrived at between the parties as well as the aforesaid order dated 3.9.2021 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.

¶23

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner is discharged of the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMP-5666/2021]

¶26

as well, in relation to Criminal Original Case No.2635/19 pending before the learned ACJM No.2, Udaipur.

¶27

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶28

230-praveen/-

Ankit Mehta v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monu Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Birbal Vs State of Rajasthan

Umesh Kumar Soni Vs State

Ran Singh Vs State

Subhash Vs Rajni Lodha

Teeja Kanwar Vs State