SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rohit Bansal And Anr vs State Of Raj And Anr on 17 February, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 845 / 2018
Rohit Bansal And Anr
—-Petitioners
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
—-Respondents

__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishvesh Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP
For Complainant (s) : Mr Om Prakash Singhal
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Order
17/02/2018

Present petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings out of FIR No.65/2017

dated 15.03.2017 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana,

Jaipur(West).

Counsel for the petitioners has read the FIR and

submitted that respondent Vandana Gupta on 11.06.2015 as per

the Hindu Customs Act had performed marriage with petitioner-

Rohit Bansal.

Counsel for the parties have submitted that a

matrimonial dispute arose and hence, respondent No.2 had filed

the said impugned FIR for offences under Sections 406, 498-A and

120-B IPC against petitioner No.1-husband and petitioner No.2-

father of petitioner No.1.

It is contended that during pendency of the
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-845/2018]

proceedings better sence prevailed and parties affected

compromise.

Counsel for the complainant has submitted that

application regarding compromise(Annx.3) was filed before the

trial court. After verifying the application(Annx.3), on 02.02.2018

the trial court passed order Annx.4.

The order passed by the trial court reads as under:-

” vfHk;qDrx.k jksfgr fnus’k e; vf/koDrk mi-A
ifjokfn;k e; vf/koDrk mi-A mHk; i{kdkj us yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk
ls jkthukek U/s 498A, 406, 120B IPC esa is’k fd;kA
voyksdu fd;k x;kA mHk; i{k dh igpku djds muds vf/koDrk }kjk
dh xbZA jkthukek mHk; i{k dks lquk;k] lek;k x;k rks mHk;i{k us
jkthukek lqu ledj Lohdkj fd;k o fcuk Hk; o ncko esa gksuk dgkA
vr% /kkjk 406 vkbZihlh jkthukek ;ksX; gksus ls dsoy ek /kkjk 406
vkbZihlh esa jkthukek ckn tkap rLnhd fd;k x;kAÞ

It is further contended that after verification of the

compromise, trial Judge passed order(Annx.5) and compounded

the offence under Section 406 IPC, being compoundable. However,

the compromise was not accepted qua offence under Sections

498-A and 120-B IPC as same are not compoundable.

Relies upon the B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana,

reported in [(2003) 4 SCC 675] to urge that in matrimonial

dispute the proceedings qua offence not compoundable, can be

quashed by this court while exercising powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

It is further submitted that hour of the compromise is

the finest hour in the life of the parties, therefore, this court

should give due credence to the compromise affected between the

parties to promote amity, everlasting peace, harmony and

tranquility.

(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-845/2018]

Mr. Om Prakash Singhal, counsel for the complainant,

as a senior member of bar has vouchsafed the factum of

compromise.

In view of the order passed by the trial court and on

the statement made by Mr. Om Prakash Singhal, present petition

is accepted and the impugned FIR along with all subsequent

proceedings is quashed, on the basis of compromise partially

accepted and attested by the trial court.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

Heena

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