Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UDHA RAM NEBHWANI AND ANS versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


UDHA RAM NEBHWANI AND ANS v STATE - CRLR Case No. 1205 of 2003 [2007] RD-RJ 3030 (30 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1205/2003

UDHA RAM NEBHWANI & ANR.

Vs.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

DATE: 30.05.2007.

HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J.

Mr. Rajnish Gupta for the petitioners.

Mr. B.K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State.

****

The present criminal revision petition under

Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 06.09.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial

Magistrate, First Class (North), Ajmer City, Ajmer in

Criminal Case No. 84/1992, whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC has been taken against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties outside the Court duly signed by the respective parties and the same has been attested by the Deputy

Registrar (Judicial) of this Court which is on record.

He further submits that in view of the above compromise arrived at between the parties, there is no justification to continue the case. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar And Another Vs. State of

Rajasthan, reported in 2005(1) RCC 281 and in the case of Banwari & 7 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 WLC

(Raj.) UC 460.

I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and have also gone through the impugned order dated 06.09.2003 passed by the Court below as well as the judgments referred before me.

Although the offences are non-compoundable but as this Court in the case of Banwari & 7 Ors. (supra) has held that 'No use proceeding with trial when complainant does not want to prove matter- Trial Court directed to permit composition and drop proceedings", and the same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Parmeshwari & Ors. Vs. Vanil, 2000

(1) SCC 248, therefore, in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, I deem it proper to direct the trial Court to permit the parties to compound the offence and further direct to close the proceedings in the present matter.

With the aforesaid observations, the revision petition stands disposed of.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


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.