SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manjeet Patheja And Ors vs State Of Raj And Anr on 19 December, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 6611 / 2017
1. Manjeet Patheja S/o Ashvani Patheja B/c Punjabi, R/o 404,
Kakkad Enclave, Kanti Chandra Road, Banipark, Jaipur.

2. Ashvani Patheja S/o Late Shri Harbhagwan Patheja B/c Punjabi,
R/o 404, Kakkad Enclave, Kanti Chandra Road, Banipark, Jaipur.

3. Jyoti Patheja D/o Shri Ashvani Patheja B/c Punjabi, R/o 404,
Kakkad Enclave, Kanti Chandra Road, Banipark, Jaipur.

4. Aman Karan Vohara W/o Ashvani Patheja B/c Punjabi, R/o 404,
Kakkad Enclave, Kanti Chandra Road, Banipark, Jaipur.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through PP.

2. Smt. Chestha Patheja @ Chestha Malika W/o Manjeet Patheja,
D/o Gopal Krishan Malik, R/o 1/104, Malviya Nagar, Police Station,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
—-Respondents

__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Tanwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitesh Pareek for the complainant
Mr. NS Dhakad PP
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Order
19/12/2017

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that a typographical error has crept in the cause title.

The learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to

correct the cause title by putting his initials subject to condition

that he shall file fresh amended cause title during the course of

the day.

(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-6611/2017]

The present petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 54/2015 registered at Police

Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East), for offences under

Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 377 IPC.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that marriage of Smt. Chestha Patheja @ Chestha Malika was

solemnized with petitioner no.1 Manjeet Patheja on 30.9.2014 as

per Hindu customs and rites. It is submitted that during the

subsistence of marriage, differences arose and the respondent

no.2 had lodged the FIR. It is submitted that during the pendency

of the litigation, better sense prevailed upon the parties and

matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved. It is contended

that an application (Annexure-2) was presented before the court

of Metropolitan Magistrate No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, and the

said application was supported by affidavits submitted by the

parties. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said

compromise was accepted by the trial court qua offence under

Section 406 IPC, as the same is compoundable, however, the said

compromise was rejected qua offence under Section 498A IPC on

the ground that the said offence is non-compoundable.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended

that the trial court has taken cognizance of offences under Sedtion

406 and 498A IPC only. The order passed by the trial court on

7.12.2017 reads as under:-

” ifjokfn;k ,oa vfHk;qDrx.k e; vf/koDrk ds mifLFkr gksdj izdj.k esa /kkjk 406
Hkk-n-la- ds vijk/k ds ckn vuqefr jkthukek fnukad 9-5-2017 ds is’k gq;s rLnhd
fd;s tkus dh fuosnu fd;k tks ifjokfn;k iwoZ vfHk;qDrx.k ds e/; jkthukek dh
iq’r ij rLnhd fd;k x;kA
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-6611/2017]

vfHk;qDrx.k xutho iBstk] vf’ou iBstk fVD;k mQZ T;ksfr iBstk o veu cksgjk
dks izdj.k esa /kkjk 406 Hkknla ds vijk/k esa izLrqr jkthukek nks”k eqDr fd;k tkrk
gSA
vr% izdj.k esa vfHk;qDr euthr iBstk fo:) /kkjk 498 mDr o ‘ks”k vfHk;qDrx.k
vf’ou iBstk] T;ksfr iBstk o veu d’r oksgjk ds fo:) dsoy /kkjk 498, Hkknla
ds vijk/k esa dk;Zokgh dh ftldk ‘ks”k jgkA ftlds fy;s vfHk;qDrx.k ds vf/koDrk
us ekuuh; jk-m- U;k- esa ;kfpdk nk;j dj vifBr dk vkns’k izkIr dj is’k djus gsrq
lek fn;s dk fuosnu fd;k gSA ikoyh okLrsa is’k gksus ikoyh vkns’k ih,Q gsrq
fnukad 15-01-18 dks is’k gksA”

The respondent no.2 Smt. Chestha Patheja @ Chestha

Malika is present in the court. She has been identified by her

counsel Mr. Nitesh Pareek. She has stated that divorce has been

obtained by way of mutual consent under Section 13B of Hindu

Marriage Act. She has prayed to this Court that to enable the

parties to move ahead in their life, present FIR which is

impediment be quashed.

The learned counsel for the parties have jointly relied

upon B.S. Joshi Ors. vs. State of Haryana Anr., 2003

Cri.L.J. 2028, to contend that this Court while exercising

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in furtherance of interest of

justice in matrimonial dispute may bring families at peace by

quashing FIR.

On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the

parties, in view of the judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra),

relied by the parties, the present petition is accepted and

impugned FIR along with all its subsequent proceedings is

quashed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

Mak/-

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh