SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ashok Kumar Sharma And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 21 February, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 4805 / 2015
1. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Omprakash Sharma, aged
about 30 years, By caste Bharmin, R/o B-1, Alkapuri, Murlipura
Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Ompraksh Sharma S/o Shri Bholaram Sharma, aged about
60 years, By caste Bharmin, R/o village Bilandpur, Tehsil
Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Smt. Meva Devi W/o Omprakash Sharma, aged about 57
years, By caste Bharmin, R/o Village Bilandpur, Tehsil Shahpura,
Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.
—- Respondent.

2. Smt. Abhilata Sharma D/o Shri Bhawani Shankar Sharma,
aged about 30 years, By caste Bhramin, R/o Plot No.31, Bajrang
Vihar, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).

—-Complainant-non-petitioner
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Godara, PP
Mr. Ravindra Paliwal.

__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Order
21/02/2018

Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as also

learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 and learned

Public Prosecutor.

This misc. petition has been preferred on behalf of the

accused-petitioners to quash and set-aside the order dated

22.08.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate No.31, Jaipur Metropolitan in Cr. Case No.1446/2011
(2 of 5)
[CRLMP-4805/2015]

titled as State Vs. Ashok and Ors., whereby the application filed by

complainant – Smt. Abhilata Sharma on 03.05.2014 was

dismissed being not pressed by her.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that

after the amicable settlement of all the disputes pending between

the parties relating to matrimonial ties, an application was filed on

03.05.2014 by the complainant that she does not want to continue

the proceedings with regard to FIR No.258/2011, registered at PS

Murlipura, Jaipur City(South), which was lodged by her on account

of some misunderstanding. After a period of more than one year,

the said application was not pressed by the complainant on

28.08.2015, therefore, the learned trial court rejected this

application dated 03.05.2014 vide impugned order dated

22.08.2015.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has drawn

attention of this Court to the application jointly filed by petitioner

Ashok Kumar Sharma and respondent-complainant Smt. Abhilata

Sharma before the learned Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan

on 27.09.2013. In para 11 of the said application, it has been

specifically mentioned that on account of amicable settlement of

all the disputes between the parties, Abhilata Sharma would

withdraw all the proceedings pending against the petitioner in

various courts including Cr. Case No.1446/2011 pending before

the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.31, Jaipur

Metropolitan arising out of FIR No.258/2011, PS Murlipura, Jaipur

City (South). Besides this case, Case No.5/2013 under Section

125 Cr.P.C. was also agreed to be withdrawn.

(3 of 5)
[CRLMP-4805/2015]

Learned counsel submits that on the basis of this

compromise application dated 27.09.2013, learned Family Court

No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan passed a judgment decree dated

22.04.2014 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,

whereby decree of divorce was granted on the basis of mutual

consent. Counsel submits that later on, complainant Abhilata

Sharma resiled from the compromise and withdrew the application

filed in Cr. Case No.1446/2011 on 03.05.2014 by not pressing it

on 22.08.2015, which was unwarranted on her part.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of

the compromise arrived at between the parties on 27.09.2013, Cr.

Case No.1446/2011 was also to be withdrawn, but since the

complainant has resiled from her commitment, the proceedings of

case aforesaid deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has

relied upon the following judgments :-

(I)- Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal Ors.,

reported in (2005) 3 SCC 299.

(II)- Mohd. Shamim Ors. Vs. Nahid Begum (Smt.)

Anr., reported in (2005) 3 SCC 302.

(III)- Mukesh Jangid Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Cr.

Misc. petition No.4737/2014 alongwith 02

connected matters decided on 22.09.2016.

(IV)- Rajesh Khanna Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of

Delhi), reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3723.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant
(4 of 5)
[CRLMP-4805/2015]

has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that an FIR

No.427/2012, was got lodged by the petitioner through one of his

friends Rinku Sharma at PS JDA, Jaipur for the offences under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B IPC. After investigation, FR

(Negative report) was filed by the police but Rinku Sharma

preferred protest petition, upon which cognizance has been taken

against complainant – Abhilata Sharma. Counsel for the

respondent submits that since this matter had not been

withdrawn, the complainant-respondent has withdrawn the

application filed by her on 03.05.2014.

I have considered the arguments advanced by rival sides.

On perusal of the compromise filed before the Court of

learned Family Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan on 27.09.2013, it

is found that it was not settled between the parties to withdraw

the case arising out of FIR No.427/2012. In view of this, the

complainant-respondent was not right in withdrawing the

application dated 03.05.2014 on account of continuation of this

case. Moreover, this case was not registered by the petitioner.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has resiled from his

commitment, on account of which the complainant was justified in

withdrawing the application dated 03.05.2014.

On perusal of judgment relied upon by learned counsel for

the petitioners, it appears that once the parties have arrived at

the compromise and settled to withdraw various matters pending

before the Court, if one of them reslies, despite the fact that the

other party has performed his part of settlement, then the

proceedings pending before the Court deserves to be quashed and
(5 of 5)
[CRLMP-4805/2015]

set-aside.

The facts and circumstances of the case in hand are similar

to those on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for

the petitioners.

Since all the matters arising out of the matrimonial ties

between the parties were compromised and application dated

27.09.2013 was filed by them before the learned Family Court

with the undertaking of the respondent No.2 to withdraw the Cr.

Case No.1446/2011 for the offences under Sections 498A 406

IPC, this Court is of the view that allowing the proceedings of the

aforesaid case will tantamount to abuse of process of law and

therefore, it should not be allowed to continue.

In the result, the misc. petition is allowed and the

proceedings in Cr. Case No.1446/2011 pending before the Court of

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.31, Jaipur

Metropolitan is quashed and set-aside.

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J.

Rm/65

Leave a Reply

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

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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh