Manoj Kumar And Ors vs State And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 16087 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 528/2013

1. Manoj Kumar s/o Chhabeel Chand aged 40 years.

2. Chhabeel Chand s/o Kanhaiyalal aged 80 years.

3. Smt. Surajdevi w/o Chhabeel chand aged 76 years. All by caste Jain r/o Bhaatiya Paadaa, Dist. Jaisalmer

4. Smt. Manisha Jain d/o Chhabeel Chand w/o Sunil Mehta aged 35 years b/c jain r/o Silawat Paadaa, Near Masjid, Jaisalmer

5. Smt. Manju Jain d/o Chhabeel chand w/o Naresh Chhajer aged 38 years b/c Jain r/o Balotara, Dist, Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Seema Jain @ Saroj Jain w/o Manoj Jain d/o Kalyanmal Jain b/c Jain r/o 5/85 in front of Dainik Bhaskar Office, Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara.

                                                   complainant
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. HM Saraswat
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
                               Mr. KR Bhati for complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

23/10/2021

The present misc. petition has been filed against the order

dated 16.01.2013 passed by the learned Session Judge, Bhilwara

in Criminal Revision Case No. 358/2012 arising out of the order

dated 03.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge

(J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.

184/2012 by which learned Magistrate took cognizance against

the petitioners under Section 498A of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the

pendency of the present petition, the parties have entered into a

compromise. The compromise deed is placed on record, the same

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-528/2013]

is taken on record. He further submits that the fact of compromise

is not disputed by the counsel for respondent No. 2. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State

of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P. V/s Laxmi

Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296] & Ram Gopal and Ors.

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489 and

1488 of 2012 decided on 29.09.2021), the proceedings

pending before the trial court may be quashed.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the compromise deed.

It is noted that the parties are present duly identified by

the learned respective counsels on being conferred by this Court.

Both the parties have agreed that they have settled the matter by

way of compromise.

Since, the parties have entered into a compromise, in light of

the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian

Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P.

V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296] & Ram

Gopal and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal

Appeal No. 1489 and 1488 of 2012 decided on 29.09.2021),

impugned order dated 16.01.2013 passed by the learned Session

Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision Case No. 358/2012 (Manoj

Kumar & Ors. vs. State) as well as other proceedings pending

before learned Magistrate against all the petitioners are quashed

and set aside.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

167-payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)