Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Manoj Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar and ors. vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 09, 2007
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/767457

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Family;Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Family;Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manoj Kumar and ors.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Cases Referred
B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.
Reported In
I(2008)DMC147

Excerpt

- .....stridhan and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner-husband. it has also been mentioned that an amount of rs. 3,25,000 has been paid as a permanent alimony to smt. naresh which she has received.3. in these circumstances, it was mentioned that wife, petitioner no. 3 does not want to proceed against the husband, the petitioner no. 1 in the instant case under section 498a and ipc.4. since, the above application could not be entertained, in view of the provisions of section 320, cr.p.c. on account of the fact that the provisions of sections 498 and 406, ipc were not applicable, the petitioners have moved this petition under section 482, cr.p.c.5. heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.6. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the spirit of the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of b.s. joshi and ors. v. state of haryana and anr. reported in : 2003 crilj2028 , and in the interest of justice, the parties may be permitted to compound the matter and the impugned order dated 25.7.2006 may be ordered to be quashed and the proceedings quashed.learned public prosecutor does not dispute the above facts.7. in the facts and circumstances, i deem it just and proper to allow this petition and permit the parties to compound the matter. the said permission, in the facts and circumstances, is granted with a view to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of court.8. consequently, this petition is disposed of, as above. the proceedings in the criminal case no. 774/2001 pending before the learned judicial magistrate, pilani, district jhunjhnu is quashed and the said criminal case is consigned to the record.

Full Judgment

Dalip Singh, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners along with an application for earlier listing of the case on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the parties and in that behalf a copy of the compromise application (Annexure 1) dated 9.6.2004 which was filed before the learned trial Court has been filed before the Court.

2. In the said compromise application (Annexure 1) dated 9.6.2004, the fact of compromise has been admitted by the parties and according to which the husband and the wife namely Manoj Kumar, the petitioner No. 1 and Smt. Naresh, the petitioner No. 3 have resolved their disputes on account of which they have submitted an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and have obtained a decree for dissolution of marriage dated 17.5.2006. It has been mentioned in the said application that wife Smt. Naresh has taken possession of all her Stridhan and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner-husband. It has also been mentioned that an amount of Rs. 3,25,000 has been paid as a permanent alimony to Smt. Naresh which she has received.

3. In these circumstances, it was mentioned that wife, petitioner No. 3 does not want to proceed against the husband, the petitioner No. 1 in the instant case under Section 498A and IPC.

4. Since, the above application could not be entertained, in view of the provisions of Section 320, Cr.P.C. on account of the fact that the provisions of Sections 498 and 406, IPC were not applicable, the petitioners have moved this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the spirit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in : 2003 CriLJ2028 , and in the interest of justice, the parties may be permitted to compound the matter and the impugned order dated 25.7.2006 may be ordered to be quashed and the proceedings quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the above facts.

7. In the facts and circumstances, I deem it just and proper to allow this petition and permit the parties to compound the matter. The said permission, in the facts and circumstances, is granted with a view to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of Court.

8. Consequently, this petition is disposed of, as above. The proceedings in the Criminal Case No. 774/2001 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilani, District Jhunjhnu is quashed and the said criminal case is consigned to the record.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial