SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanjeev Kumar And Ors vs State Of Raj And Anr on 1 May, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2260/2018

1. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Shri Surendra Nath B/c Punjabi, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, District Jaipur,
Presently R/o 48, Shri Bhawani Shankar Colony, Near
Jwala Mata Kaa Mandir, Charan Nadi, Bainad Road, Jaipur,
Raj.
2. Surendra Nath B/c Punjabi, Aged About 67 Years, R/o
Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, District Jaipur, Presently R/o 48,
Shri Bhawani Shankar Colony, Near Jwala Mata Kaa
Mandir, Charan Nadi, Bainad Road, Jaipur, Raj.
3. Smt. Sudesh W/o Surendra Nath, Aged About 64 Years,
R/o Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, District Jaipur, Presently R/o
48, Shri Bhawani Shankar Colony, Near Jwala Mata Kaa
Mandir, Charan Nadi, Bainad Road, Jaipur, Raj.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Smt. Neeta Daad W/o Sanjeev Kumar B/c Punjabi, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Bapu Colony, Rangpura Road, Kota,
Junction Kota, Raj., Presently R/o Laxmi Chauhan, B-139,
Jagdamba Nagar, Heerapura Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Raj.
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor
For Complainant : Mr. Surendra Sharma

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Order

01/05/2018

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.44/2004, dated 28.02.2004,

registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kota for offences

under Section 498A and 406 IPC.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2260/2018]

2. Counsel for the parties have relied upon an order

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special

No.1754/2010, Smt. Neeta Vs. Sanjeev Kumar, decided on

03.04.2018. The order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the Division

Bench of this Court reads as under:-

“It is stated by learned counsel for the parties
that a settlement has been arrived between the
parties. The copy of the compromise deed has been
produced before this court.

Learned counsel submits that appellant would co-
operate for disposal or withdrawal of the pending
cases. The appellant will submit an application in the
pending case under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short “Act of 2005”)
within 15 days from today for its withdrawal. In that
case, the court concerned would pass an order on the
application for withdrawal of the cases in terms of
settlement. In the same manner, the appellant would
co-operate for quashing of the proceedings for the
offence under Section 498A IPC and prior to that,
compounding of the offence under Section 406 IPC by
the trial court. The parties have agreed to file a
criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before
the High Court for dropping the proceedings for offence
under Section 498A IPC and for the aforesaid,
necessary action would be taken within the period of
15 days.

In view of the above, the compromise is taken on
record and with the aforesaid, a decree for divorce is
passed in terms of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 by dispensing with the period of six months,
however, if any of the parties would default in
complying the terms of settlement, they would be at
liberty to seek recall of this order.

It is further made clear that in case of a criminal
misc. petition for dropping the criminal proceedings for
offence under Section 498A IPC, the another party
would co-operate in the light of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana Anr., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675. A draft in
a sum of Rs.16 lac has been given to the appellant which
can be encashed. If the appellant would fail to co-operate
for disposal of the pending cases, as indicated above, the
direction for re-payment can be given.

The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid.”

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2260/2018]

3. Shri Surendra Sharma, Counsel appearing on behalf of

the complainant-respondent has submitted that in terms of the

order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the complainant-

respondent has received `16 lacs by way of Four Demand Drafts

and said drafts have been encashed. Counsel has therefore prayed

that to facilitate the order of divorce passed by the Division Bench

of this Court, the impugned FIR be quashed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the contents of the instant petition.

5. In view of the observations made by the Division Bench

of this Court, present petition is accepted in light of the judgment

rendered by the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of

Harayana, reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C. 675 and the impugned

FIR No.44/2004, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District

Kota for above-said offences along with all subsequent

proceedings is quashed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

KKC/s-112

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