Allowed

Imtiaz Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Mar 2022CRLMP/991/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of proceedings under Sections 354 and 498-A IPC. Relying on established Supreme Court principles, the Court quashed the proceedings given the bona fide compromise between petitioners and the complainant.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.3/2019 and proceedings in Criminal Case No.1135/2019 were quashed; stay application disposed of.

Imtiaz Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 991/2022

¶4

Imtiaz Ahmed S/o Mohammad Yousuf, Aged About 32 Years, 236 Mansuri Colony, Suhbash Chauraha, Razak Colony, Ambamata, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶5

Ishtiaq Ahmed S/o Mohammad Yousuf, Aged About 42 Years, 236 Mansuri Colony, Suhbash Chauraha, Razak Colony, Ambamata, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

Rehana Bano W/o Imtiaz Ahmed D/o Mohammad Rafiq, Aged About 29 Years, 88 Komi Ekta Nagar, Central Academy School, Near Mallatalai, P.s. Ambamata, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Varsha Purohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP Ms. Manish Purohit

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

08/03/2022

¶15

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.1135/2019, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Udaipur arising out of FIR No.3/2019, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Udaipur for the offences under Sections 354 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a compromise was placed before the trial Court, which though verified the factum of compromise and discharged them for the

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CRLMP-991/2022]

¶19

offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, however, refused to discharge the petitioners for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent – complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise and also does not oppose if the matter is disposed of in terms of compromise.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that petitioners and complainant have decided to resolve the dispute amicably, this Court deems it expedient to quash the proceedings in order to avoid bitterness in the relationship between the petitioners and respondent – complainant, being guided by the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] and State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ].

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, this misc. petition is allowed.

¶23

The FIR No.3/2019, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Udaipur and proceedings in furtherance thereof in Criminal Case No.1135/2019, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Udaipur are hereby quashed.

¶24

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶26

172-skm/-

Imtiaz Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imtiaz Ahmed 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

Lalchand Vs Giriraj

Dharuram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Choudhary Vs State

Mahendra Singh Bhati Vs State

Rajbala Vs State of Rajasthan

Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan