Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HIMMAT SINGH versus ZAHID ALI AND ANS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


HIMMAT SINGH v ZAHID ALI AND ANS - CRLMP Case No. 845 of 2003 [2006] RD-RJ 1853 (5 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

ORDER

Himmat Singh

Vs.

Zahid Ali and anr.

SB CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.845/2003 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Date of Order :- 5/9/2006.

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

None present for the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Sharma PP for the State.

****

The instant petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 21/2/2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Hindaun City in Revision No.15/2002 whereby the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 4/1/2002 passed by the learned Additional Judicial

Magistrate No.1, Hindaun City in Criminal Complaint

Case No.50/2001 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC has been upheld.

Since the present petition has been filed for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of learned

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and

Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, No.13, Jaipur City,

Jaipur in Criminal Case No.133/2001 for offences u/Ss.323, 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The brief and relevant facts of the case are that complainant-Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Addl.Civil Judge

(Jr.Div.) and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class No.13,

Jaipur City, Jaipur against the accused-petitioners for committing offences u/Ss. 323, 498-A and 406

I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 against them by the accused- petitioners. 1119/2005

(2)

The complaint was sent to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereupon the police after investigation filed charge-sheet against petitioners for the offences as indicated above on 30/9/2001 vide Charge-sheet No.44/2001.

It is contended on behalf of the parties that the parties have now arrived at a compromise.

The parties are present in court and have submitted a deed of compromise duly signed by them which be taken on record. They have also been got identified in court by their respective counsel.

Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that now the parties have arrived at a compromise. Therefore, the criminal proceedings pending before the court below may be quashed so that there may not be any more bitterness between them and they may live their life peacefully. They have submitted on the strength of B.S. Joshi & Ors.

Vs. State of Haryana and another- [2003 RCC (SC) 400] that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings /F.I.R. / complaint and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not affect or limit the inherent powers vested in this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Keeping in view the law laid down by their

Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned authority and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the criminal proceedings pending between the parties in the court 1119/2005

(3) below deserve to be quashed for securing the ends of justice.

In the result, this criminal misc.petition u/S.482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of learned

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and

Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class No.13, Jaipur City,

Jaipur in Criminal Case No.133/2001 for offences u/Ss.323, 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are hereby quashed.

(HARBANS LAL), J. anil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

ORDER

Mohd.Aslam and anr.

Vs.

Smt.Salma and ors.

S.B. CR.MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.1341/2006

IN

SB CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1119/2005 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Date of Order :- 4/9/2006.

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

Mr. M.I. Beg for the applicants-petitioners.

Mr. Arun Sharma PP for the State.

Mr. Mohd.Anees for the respondents.

****

BY THE COURT:-

Consequent upon disposal of the main petition today itself, this stay application has become infructuous.

As such, this stay application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as having infructuous.

(HARBANS LAL), J. anil


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.