Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abhishek Shrimali vs State Of Rajasthan (2023/Rjjd/006078) on 27 February, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023/RJJD/006078]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8646/2022
1. Abhishek Shrimali S/o Sh. Manohar Lal, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Bhrampuri Chowk, Chungaro Ka Maholla,
Bikaner Currently R/o as Assistant Professor NIIt College
Kurushetra, Hariyana.
2. Manohar Lal Shrimali S/o Lt. Sh. Madan Lal Shrimali,
Aged About 60 Years, R/o Bhrampuri Chowk, Chungaro
Ka Maholla, Bikaner
3. Smt. Suman Shrimali W/o Manohar Lal Shrimali, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o Bhrampuri Chowk, Chungaro Ka
Maholla, Bikaner
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through State Of Rajasthan Through
Pp
2. Smt. Kritika Dave W/o Shri Abhishek Shrimali D/o
Ghansyama Ji, R/o Parihar Nagar, Bhawasiya,
Mahamandir, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioners : None present
For Respondent : Mr.Mukesh Trivedi, PP
No.1-State.
For Respondent No.2 : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 27/02/2023 Defect pointed out by the office is hereby overruled. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Original Case No.129/2014, by which the learned Magistrate refused to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC. (Downloaded on 27/02/2023 at 11:02:19 PM) [2023/RJJD/006078] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8646/2022] It is submitted in the memo of petition that the petitioners and the respondent No.2-complainant are husband and wife. The parties have entered into a compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat. The copy of compromise has been produced before the trial court but the trial court has refused to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC on the basis of compromise, therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 29.09.2022 to that extent may be quashed and the offence under Section 498A IPC may also be compounded and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed.
Lawyers are abstaining from work.
Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order. It appears that the parties have already entered into compromise and resolved their dispute amicably. From the compromise deed, it appears that the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioners in relation to offences punishable under Section 498A IPC.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the accused-petitioners and the respondent No.2- complainant have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute and in the view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2003 (4) SCC p.675 in which it has been held that the proceedings under Section 498A IPC can be quashed because it is the matrimonial matter, the order dated 29.09.2022 refusing to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC is liable to be set aside.
(Downloaded on 27/02/2023 at 11:02:19 PM)
[2023/RJJD/006078] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8646/2022] Accordingly, the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the trial court refusing to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC is hereby set aside on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties and while compounding the offence under Section 498A IPC, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Original Case No.129/2014 are hereby quashed.
The misc. petition is disposed of accordingly. Stay application is also disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 96-NK/-
(Downloaded on 27/02/2023 at 11:02:19 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)