SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abdul Salim vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 November, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2982/2018

1. Abdul Salim S/o Shakoor Mohammad, Aged About 55
Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Niyariyon Ki Gali, Udaimandir,
Jodhpur

2. Sher Mohamad S/o Shakoor Mohammad, Aged About 50
Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Niyarion Ki Gali, Udaimandir,
Jodhpur

3. Hussaina W/o Sher Mohammad, Aged About 45 Years, B/c
Muslim, R/o Niyarion Ki Gali, Udaimandir, Jodhpur

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Ruhina Bano W/o Sahazad Khan, R/o Gali No. 11 K 444,
Devi Road, Chanana Bhakar, Jodhpur

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parvej Moyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Faroz Khan

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

14/11/2018

1. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.160/2018 dated

05.09.2018 lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City

West for the offences under Section 498A, 406 and 420 of IPC.

2. The matter pertains to a matrimonial dispute and the

complainant respondent No.2 Ruhina Bano, as identified by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, is present in the Court and

submits that she does not want to continue with the case.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-2982/2018]

3. Since it is a matrimonial case and the complainant /

wife respondent No.2 present in the Court makes a clear

statement that she does not want to go ahead with the case,

therefore, in the fitness of the facts aforesaid, the present misc.

petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned

investigating officer to take the supplementary statement of the

respondent No.2 and complete the investigation accordingly, while

keeping into consideration the precedent law of Gian Singh V/s.

State of Punjab Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303. However, it is

made clear that the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection

with the present FIR and in case any requirement of arrest still

persists then the concerned investigating officer shall be required

to give 15 days’ prior notice to the petitioner before making such

arrest. The parties will be at liberty to approach this Court, if

required.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

sudheer

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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