SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abdul Hamid vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:10243) on 28 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Abdul Hamid vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:10243) on 28 February, 2024

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:10243]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1365/2024

Abdul Hamid S/o Yasin Khan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Chanod,
Dist. Pali, Rajasthan At Present Residing At Indra Colony, P.s.
Kotwali Pali, Pali, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Ruksana Bano W/o Abdul Hamid, D/o Basir, R/o Outside
Jodhpuriya Gate, Sipahiyo Ka Bas, Sojat City, Dist. Pali,
Rajasthan.
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.
Mr. Pratap Singh.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

28/02/2024

The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.c.

has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of criminal

proceedings in Criminal Case No.02/2014 titled as State Vs. Abdul

Hamid, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Sojat City, District Pali, for offence under Section 498A

IPC.

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties

have settled their disputes and have arrived at a compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a

decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh

Vs. State of Punjab Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 303]

(Downloaded on 28/02/2024 at 08:40:42 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:10243] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1365/2024]

and B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003)4

SCC 675. He therefore prayed that the impugned criminal

proceedings may kindly be quashed.

Learned counsel for the complainant concurs the factum of

compromise and submits that in view of the compromise, the

complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.

In view of compromise arrived at between the parties and

applying the ratio in decision of Gian Singh (Supra) and B.S.

Joshi (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The

criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.02/2014 titled as State

Vs. Abdul Hamid, pending before the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Sojat City, District Pali, for offence under

Section 498A IPC, are quashed qua the petitioner.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
565-Prashant/-

(Downloaded on 28/02/2024 at 08:40:42 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

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
MyNation Times Magzine


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

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation