Prakash Gadari vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8801 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:36473]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4452/2023

Prakash Gadari S/o Gangaram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Joida, Fatehnaga, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Savita Gadari W/o Gotilal Gadari, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Chaila Ka Kheda, P.s. Vallabhnagar, Distt.

         Udaipur (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Anuj Sahlot
                                Mr. Arun Dadhich
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
                                Mr. Pramod Kumar Gaur, for the
                                complainant



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                     Order

20/10/2023

The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.c.

has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the

proceedings in connection with FIR No.99/2023 registered at

Police Station Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur for the offence under

Sections 376(2)(n) and 384 of 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:36473] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4452/2023]

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,

applying the ratio of the decision in Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State

of 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. All

proceedings in connection with FIR No.99/2023 registered at

[2023:RJ-JD:36473] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4452/2023]

Police Station Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur for the offence under

Sections 376(2)(n) and 384 of IPC, are quashed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 647-Ravi Khandelwal

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)