SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Chunniram @ Chunnaram S/O Shri … vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 21 August, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4946/2018

Chunniram @ Chunnaram S/o Shri Mangla Ram Jat, R/o
Nonandpura, Tehsil Kishangarh District Ajmer, Raj.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Rajasthan.
2. Meenu W/o Shri Chunniram, R/o Village Manpura Ki
Dhani, Post Narwar Tehsil And District Ajmer.
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Jyotish Kalathy
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP for State
Mr. Jai Singh Rathore, for respondent
No.2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Order

21/08/2018

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

seeking quashing of FIR No.69/2016, registered at Police Station

Gegal, District Ajmer for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and

120B IPC.

Complainant-respondent No.2 Meenu, on 21.4.2015 was

married as per Hindu customs and rites with petitioner Chunniram

@ Chunnaram. During subsistence of marriage, differences arose

between the parties and hence, respondent No.2-complainant

lodged the above said FIR. During pendency of proceedings, better
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-4946/2018]

sense prevailed between the parties and matrimonial dispute has

been resolved amicably.

Meenu, Complainant-respondent No.2, has been identified by

her counsel Jai Singh Rathore. Complainant has stated that

accused-petitioner has already paid Rs.3,50,000/- to her towards

permanent alimony, Stridhan, litigation charges and cost.

Complainant stated that she no longer intends to pursue the

present FIR.

Pratap, father of Meenu, complainant, is present in court. He

assured this court that Rs.3,50,000/- received by him from the

accused shall be kept in FDR on the name of his daughter Meenu,

complainant-respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the parties have vouchsafed the factum

of compromise.

It may be noted that the compromise was presented before

the trial court. The trial court attested the compromise for offence

under Sections 406 IPC, but rejected the same for offence under

Section 498A IPC on the ground that the said offence is non-

compoundable.

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 offence.

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
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4946/2018]

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