SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bhanu Pratap Singh S/O Sh. Gopal … vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 May, 2019


S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3404/2019

Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Sh. Gopal Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Derio Ka Bas, Rai Colony, Barmer.
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2. Bhawna @ Rubi W/o Sh. Bhanu Pratap Singh, D/o Sh.
Man Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o A-4, Ganesh Vihar,
Chak Getor, Sanganer, Jaipur.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapeshwar Lal Singh Parmar
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Vijay Sharma
For State : Mr. Arvind Kumar Chawla, P.P.




1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498-A and Section406 of

I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 95/2018 pending before Judicial

Magistrate No.2, Jaipur.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that parties have

amicably settled the dispute and compromise was filed before the

Court below. Court below has compounded the offence under

Section 406 I.P.C but as the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

is non-compoundable, prayer to that extent was rejected.

3. It is contended that parties have filed an application under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual

(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 05:32:52 AM)
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-3404/2019]

consent. It is also contended that part amount has already been

paid to non-petitioner.

4. Non-petitioner is present in person in the Court who has not

disputed the fact that parties have amicably settled the dispute.

She has no objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings

pending before the Court below.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. As per the compromise arrived at between the parties, Rs.

7,50,000/- is to be paid to the non-petitioner at the time of

passing of decree of divorce by mutual consent.

7. In view of the fact that parties have amicably settled the

dispute, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and

proceedings in Criminal Case No. 95/2018 pending before Judicial

Magistrate No.2, Jaipur are quashed. Stay application stands


8. However, it is made clear that if petitioner does not pay the

said amount, as agreed between the parties, non-petitioner would

be free to move an application before this Court for appropriate



Simple Kumawat/149

(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 05:32:52 AM)

Powered by TCPDF (

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Your email address will not be published.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