Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 October, 2023
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:35031] (1 of 3) [CRLMP-6502/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6502/2023
Chandan Singh S/o Lt. Padam Singh, Aged About 65 Years, B/c-
Rajput, R/o- Amiyapura, Sughad, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ms. Sameer D/o Ram Singh, Aged About 28 Years, B/c-
Jat, R/o- Jodha Da Baas, P.s. Chidava,district Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Kumar, P.P.
Mr. Sikander Khan, for the
complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
13/10/2023
The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.c.
has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R.
No.340/2022, registered at Police Station Ratanada, District
Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 323 &
342 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties
have settled their disputes and have arrived at a compromise.
Learned counsel for the complainant concurs the factum of
compromise and submits that in view of the compromise, the
complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.
[2023:RJ-JD:35031] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6502/2023]
Attention of the Court was drawn towards an affidavit filed
by the prosecutrix wherein, she has stated that she has decided to
resolve the dispute amicably with the present petitioner in the
spirit of Lok Adalat and does not wish to continue with the present
litigation.
This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of
Delhi & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2021 decided on
30.07.2021, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-
"3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter
alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that
both the Accused (Appellant) and Respondent No. 2 were
living together for a considerable while. The complainant's
allegation is that the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting
to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the
accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.
4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were
referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child
was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a
consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the
maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.
5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on
behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this
may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution
further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal
proceedings must be quashed.
6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the
impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the FIR
(No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is,
however, made clear that this order will not come in the way
or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in
any other pending proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be
decided in accordance with law.
7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent."
In view of compromise arrived at between the parties, as
also the careful perusal of the affidavit of prosecutrix and applying
the ratio of the decision in Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of
[2023:RJ-JD:35031] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6502/2023]
Delhi (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke
inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The F.I.R.
No.340/2022, registered at Police Station Ratanada, District
Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 323 &
342 IPC and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken
thereunder against the petitioner, are quashed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
10-Ravi Khandelwal
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
