Allowed

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2022CRLMP/243/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Relying on a reported Supreme Court judgment, the court held that continuance of proceedings was not expedient after an amicable settlement was reached by the parties.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.138/2017 and all proceedings in furtherance thereof under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC were quashed and set aside.

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 243/2018

¶4

Dinesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal Ji Vera, 51, Krishnapuri Society, Opposite Community Hall, Mathura, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. At Present Residing At Unit 808-6, River Road, West Parramatta Nsw 2150 Sidney Australia.

¶5

Smt. Shakuntala Devi W/o Late Shri Banwari Lal Ji Verma, 51, Krishnapuri Society, Opposite Community Hall, Mathura, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.

¶6

Chandra Mohan S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal Ji Verma, 51, Krishnapuri Society, Opposite Community Hall, Mathura, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.

¶7

Smt. Ashwini W/o Shri Chandra Mohan Verma, 51, Krishnapuri Society, Opposite Community Hall, Mathura, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.

¶8

Dr. Manju Choudhary W/o Dr. Pawan Choudhary, A3-254, Police Colony, A-3, Pashchim Vihar, Western Delhi.

¶9

Dr. Pawan Choudhary S/o Late Balveer Singh Mentioned As Not Known In Fir, Village Rarah, District Bharatpur Raj. Also At A-3-254, Police Colony, A-3, Pashchim Vihar, Western Delhi.

¶10

Chhiddi Singh S/o Late Shri Jabbar Singh Mentioned As Not Known In Fir, House No.16-17, Bajaj Palace, Abhiruddha Nagar, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur Raj.

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan

¶14

Smt. Nidhi Choudhary W/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Verma, 17, Saraswati Nagar, Mali Colony, Surajpol, Udaipur, District Udaipur Raj.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitanay Gahlot, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mool Singh Bhati, P.P. Mr. M.R. Choudhary, through VC

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶18

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-243/2018]

¶19

Order

¶20

02/02/2022

¶21

The petitioners have approached this court by way of this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR No.138/2017 registered at the Police Station Mahila Thana, Udaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.

¶22

Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot, learned counsel representing the petitioners, has placed on record copies of documents indicating amicable settlement of dispute between the petitioners and the complainant through a compromise. The respondent complainant No.2 Smt. Nidhi Choudhary has filed an application dated 21.01.2022 in the Court of the ACJM No.2, Udaipur for termination of this case by mutual consent. The trial court accepted the compromise application to the extent of the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. However, the offence punishable under Section 498-A being not compoundable, the application was not found fit to be accepted for that offence.

¶23

Learned counsel Mr. M.R. Choudhary, representing the complainant, agrees that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. Thus, all proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioners in furtherance of the impugned FIR may be quashed.

¶24

Accordingly, taking a cue from the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC-426 , this court’s feels that further continuance of the proceedings going on against the petitioners in the trial Court cannot be said to be expedient in the interest of justice. If the proceedings are allowed to continue, it may result into the compromise being unsettled.

¶25

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-243/2018]

¶26

Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No.138/2017 registered at the Police Station Mahila Thana, Udaipur and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside. Stay petition is also disposed of.

¶27

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶28

79-Pramod/-

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimla Devi Vs State and Anr.

Satish Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan

Bajranglal Vs State