High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 03 RAJ CK 0119

Vodaphone Essar Digi Link Ltd. vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 22 March 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 709 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 325 words

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Company states that although a compromise has been entered between the complainant and the Petitioner-Company, the learned trial court has still directed the Petitioner-Company to reveal the name of either its Company Secretary or its equivalent officers vide order dated 04.03.2011. According to the learned Counsel, the learned trial court, in fact, should have passed an order with regard to the compromise submitted before it. Therefore, a prayer has been made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Company that the learned trial court should be directed to pass its order on the basis of the compromise.

2.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Company has frankly conceded that the offence u/s 304A IPC is not compoundable. Therefore, the learned trial court is bound to dismiss its application for compounding the said offence. However, it will give ample opportunity to the Petitioner Company to approach this Court to plead that the offence should be compounded as a compromise has been duly reached between the parties.

3.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Company as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

4.

Since a compromise has already been submitted before the learned trial court, the learned trial court is duty bound to consider the same. Obviously, before it can consider the compromise, the parties have to appear before it. However, the Petitioner-Company has an apprehension that in case its officers were to appear before the learned trial court, their liberty may be jeopardized. But considering the fact that a compromise has been entered between the parties, the Petitioner-Company is directed to appear before the learned trial court either through its Company Secretary or its equivalent officers. The learned trial court is directed not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner-Company or its officers and to pass the necessary order with regard to the compromise entered between the parties.

5.

With these observations, this petition is, hereby, disposed of.