Smt.Geeta Devi @ Santra & Ors vs State & Anr on 7 November, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1710 / 2013

1. Smt.Geeta Devi @ Santra W/o Jodha Ram,

2. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Jodha Ram,

3. Jodha Ram S/o Shri Kamla Ram,
All by caste Bhargava, Resient of Ward No.6, Old Khunja,
Hanumangarh, Tehsil District Hanumangarh.

4. Arjun Ram S/o Shri Jodha Ram, byc aste Bhargava, at present
resident of RPF Barrack, Rani Bazar, Bikaner.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Suman D/o Sohan Lal, by caste Bhargava, Resident of Ward
No.13, Railway Traffic Colony, Hanumangarh Junction.

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) :Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Sudheer Sharma
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
07/11/2017

1. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding registered as

criminal case No.82/2010 and order dated 22.11.2010 and

29.11.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate (First Class),

Hanumangarh and the order dated 23.07.2013 passed by

Additional District and Session Judge No.2, Hanumagarh here by

the order of framing charges under Section 498A, 406 323 of

IPC.

(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-1710/2013]

2. Learned counsel for the both the parties has shown the

order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the basis of

compromise so arrived at between the parties, the order passed in

S.B. Criminal Revision No.470/2017 decided on 25.10.2017, reads

as under :-

“The parties have amicably settled their dispute. A
compromise application signed by the petitioner as well
as the respondent No.2 was submitted before the Dy.
Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur who
has verified the same. The parties shall take the
requisite steps as per the terms of settlement for
dissolution of their marriage and for dropping of the
various cases registered inter-se between them.

In view of the fact that the spouses have amicably
settled all the matrimonial disputes and since the
respondent No.2 has agreed to receive from the
petitioner, a lump-sum amount of Rs.13,50,000/- for her
own and for her son’s maintenance, the instant revision
is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.03.2017
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Hanumangarh in Misc. Criminal Case No.884/2012
whereby, the respondents were awarded total
maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,500/- per month under
the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act is quashed
and set aside.

It is made clear that in case, either of the parties,
contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the
settlement, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to seek
revival of the proceedings culminated by effect of the
settlement.”

3. The present misc. petition is allowed in terms of the

same compromise recorded by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid

order. The certified copy of the concerned order and compromise
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-1710/2013]

both are taken on record.

4. On such joint statement of the counsel for both the

parties, the present misc. petition is allowed in terms of the Gian

Singh V/s. State of Punjab Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], and

the Criminal Case No.82/2010 pending before the Judicial

Magistrate (First Class) Hanumangarh is quashed.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

Sudheer choudhary

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *