The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Birendra Kumar expressed its dissatisfaction over the trial court's explanation for not allowing the prayer of the petitioner-wife to withdraw the complaint against her husband Rajendra Sharma for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC.
Background:
Petitioner had filed a criminal complaint 18 of 2016 against her husband Rajendra Sharma for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. Later on, the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the complaint case. Prayer for withdrawal of complaint of bailable offence was not considered rather kept pending by the court , hence instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal case.
Observation and Order of the Court:
The High Court asked the trial court to explain the reason for not allowing the prayer of the petitioner to withdraw the complaint cases. Explanation dated 08.07.2022 made it clear that record was pending for appearance of the accused after cognizance.
The Learned court reported that an application for withdrawal dated 12.03.2022 was filed by the petitioner before the bench of Lok Adalat and the bench called for the judicial record.
Court was of the view that report of the Trial Court is contrary to the
petition of the petitioner. Court further explained that on the next date fixed in the case, petitioner was not present, in the circumstance petition for withdrawal of complaint case remained pending.
The High Court while expressing its displeasure stated that the explanation of the court below does not deserve acceptance because the explanation is against the material on the record.
Further, it was highlighted that there was no reason to send the record to Lok Adalat when both the parties were not present before the court because Lok Adalat could not have done anything without consent of the parties.
The High Court pointed out that the inaction of the court below has led to unnecessary harassment to the petitioner to approach this court ventilating the same grievance.
Atlast it was said that If the Public Prosecutor was prosecuting the matter, it was itself alien to the scheme of Cr.P.C, therefore prayer of the Petitioner was allowed and the criminal case was quashed.
Case Title: Smt. Rashmi Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments