SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ajay Meena And Anr vs State Of Raj And Anr on 27 August, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 32/2018

1. Ajay Meena S/o Ganga Sahai B/c Meena, R/o Village
Sahrakar, Ps Todabhim, District Karauli.
2. Shanti W/o Ganga Sahai B/c Meena, R/o Village Sahrakar,
Ps Todabhim, District Karauli.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Smt. Manoj Kumari W/o Ajay, D/o Ramroop B/c Meena,
R/o Village Sewa, Ps Wajirpur, District Sawaimadhopur.
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP for State
Mr. Nitesh Pareek, for respondent
No.2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Order

27/08/2018

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

seeking quashing of FIR No.157/2012, registered at Police Station

Wazirpur, District Sawai Madhopur, for offences under Sections

498A, 406 and 494 IPC.

Briefly stated, complainant-respondent No.2 Smt. Manoj

Kumari on 8.6.2009, as per Hindu customs and rites, was married

with Ajay Meena, petitioner No.1. During subsistence of marriage,

differences arose and hence, respondent No.2 was compelled to

lodge the aforesaid FIR.

It is contended that during pendency of proceedings, the

matter has been amicably resolved and thereafter, the parties
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-32/2018]

have obtained decree of divorce from the Civil Court. It is further

submitted that after divorce was obtained, Ajay Meena, accused-

petitioner No.1, and Smt. Manoj Kumari, complainant-respondent

No.2, have performed remarriage and they are living happily in

their respective families.

Shri Nitesh Pareek, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has

identified Smt. Manoj Kumari, complainant-respondent No.2. Shri

Nitesh Pareek has also vouchsafed the factum of compromise.

It may be noted that the compromise was presented before

the trial court. The trial court, vide order dated 6.9.2017, attested

the compromise for offence under Section 406 IPC and now, trial

is pending for remaining offences under Sections 498A, 494 IPC

being non-compoundable offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon B.S. Joshi

Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, to contend that

in matrimonial matters, to bring families at peace, this court while

invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the

FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings even for non-

compoundable offences.

Taking into account the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the

matrimonial dispute has been resolved by the parties by way of

compromise, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR

alongwith all subsequent proceedings is quashed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

Govind/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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