Vimlesh Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Vimlesh Kumar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 18, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1046299

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1046299
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Apr 18, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vimlesh Kumar

Advocate Shri. K.P.Singh

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Advocate Shri. Anirudh Singh

Excerpt

.....singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2. challenging the order dated 9/11/12 passed by the judicial magistrate firs.class, satna in criminal case no.1767/09 dismissing an application filed under section 320 (2) of the cr.p.c. in the matter of compounding an offence under section 498-a of i.p.c. r/w section 3 /4 of the dowry prohibition act, this application has been filed under section 482 seeking quashment of the proceedings in view of the compromise entered into between the parties. learned counsel for the applicants invites my attention to the principle laid down by the supreme court in various cases and followed by a bench of this court in the case of bhavuk sharma and others versus anju sharma (smt.) and another, 2010 (1) m.p.h.t.499 and submits that in the light of the aforesaid principle even though an offence u/s 498-a is shown to be non- compoundable but in matrimonial matters.an exception is drawn by the supreme court and in case, the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, it is held that the matter can be compounded and the criminal proceedings quashed. in the present case also, the husband and the wife have compromised the matter. they have resolved all their disputes and are reported to be staying together and want to have a peaceful co-existence, they have compromised the matter in furtherance to this intention. keeping in view the aforesaid and the principles laid down in the judgment referred to and indicated in the case of bhavuk sharma (supra) , this application is allowed. the compromise entered into between the parties is accepted and by allowing an application under section 320 (2) of the cr.p.c., proceedings in criminal case no.1767/09 pending in the court of judicial magistrate firs.class, satna are quashed and the same is disposed of in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties. with the aforesaid, application stands allowed and disposed of. (rajendra menon) judge vy/-

Full Judgment

Cr.C.No.1285/13 18/04/13 Shri K.P.Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.

Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1.

Shri Anirudh Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Challenging the order dated 9/11/12 passed by the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Satna in Criminal Case No.1767/09 dismissing an application filed under Section 320 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

in the matter of compounding an offence Under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

r/w Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, this application has been filed under Section 482 seeking quashment of the proceedings in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicants invites my attention to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases and followed by a Bench of this Court in the case of Bhavuk Sharma and others versus Anju Sharma (Smt.) and another, 2010 (1) M.P.H.T.499 and submits that in the light of the aforesaid principle even though an offence U/s 498-A is shown to be non- compoundable but in matrimonial matteRs.an exception is drawn by the Supreme Court and in case, the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, it is held that the matter can be compounded and the criminal proceedings quashed.

In the present case also, the husband and the wife have compromised the matter.

They have resolved all their disputes and are reported to be staying together and want to have a peaceful co-existence, they have compromised the matter in furtherance to this intention.

Keeping in view the aforesaid and the principles laid down in the judgment referred to and indicated in the case of Bhavuk Sharma (supra) , this application is allowed.

The compromise entered into between the parties is accepted and by allowing an application under Section 320 (2) of the Cr.P.C., proceedings in Criminal Case No.1767/09 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Satna are quashed and the same is disposed of in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties.

With the aforesaid, application stands allowed and disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Vimlesh Kumar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education