High Court of Rajasthan quashed FIR and subsequent proceedings in a matrimonial dispute under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a compromise and the complainant's statement that she no longer intends to pursue the case.
Present petition is accepted and impugned FIR along with all its subsequent proceedings is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
----Petitioners
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Petitioners Ritesh Agrawal and Geeta Devi are present in person For Respondent(s) : Respondent no.2 Divya present in person.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Order
29/05/2018
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 67/2012 registered at Police Station Kardhan, Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 420, 406, 494, 384, 376 and 120B IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings be quashed.
Divya on 20.1.2010 as per Hindu customs and rites was married with Ritesh Agrawal. During subsistence of marriage, differences arose and Divya respondent no.2 lodged the above
(2 of 4)
[CRLMP-2770/2018]
said FIR. Later, better sense prevailed upon the parties and they presented a compromise before the trial court. The compromise arrived between the parties is annexed with the present petition as Annexure-2. It is stated in the compromise that Divya has received Rs.7 Lakhs vide a bankers cheque dated 3.4.2018.
Divya respondent no.2, who is present in person has stated that her marriage has already been declared void by the court of competent jurisdiction. The trial court on 13.7.2017 accepted the compromise for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 494 IPC but the same was rejected qua offence under Section 498A IPC, on the ground that the said offence is noncompoundable.
Yesterday i.e. on 28.5.2018 the present case was listed and this Court directed Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to record statements of petitioners Ritesh Agrawal and Geeta Devi and respondent no.2 Divya, after they are duly identified.
Deputy Registrar (Judicial) has recorded separate statement of the petitioners and the respondent no.2 Divya.
The separate statement of the petitioners and the respondent no.2 are taken on record and are made part of the paper book.
The statement of Divya, respondent no.2 reads as
under :-
“eSa fnO;k iq=h fouksn dqekj ijukeh] mez 36 Ok"kZ] tkfr ijukeh] LFkk;h irk& 2@54] ,l0,Q0,l0 vxzoky QkeZ] ekuljksoj t;iqj] gky fuoklh& 80@239 iVsy ekxZ] ekuljksoj] t;iqj ¼jkt0½
'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrh gwW fd eSa fjrs'k vxzoky ls fnlEcj 2008 tfj;s bUVjusV lEidZ esa vk;h FkhA vkSj ge nksauks us 20 tuojh 2010 dks 90@,] mn;uxj fdlku /keZdkVk ds ikl] t;iqj esa fgUnw jhfr&fjokt ls 'kknh dh FkhA gekjs fookg ls iwoZ fjrs'k us Lo;a dks
(3 of 4)
[CRLMP-2770/2018]
vfookfgr gksuk crk;k FkkA ysfdu eq>s vDVwcj 2011 esa fjrs'k us js[kk ds lkFk fookfgr gksus dk irk pykA ftuds rykd dk eqdnek ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; esa py jgk Fkk ftldk QSlyk o"kZ 2012 esa gqvkA fookg ds ckn ge nksuksa mijksDRk 90@,] mn;uxj fdlku /keZdkaVk ds ikl] t;iqj mlds ekrk&firk ds lkFk jgrs FksA dqN le; i'pkr mlus esjs lkFk ekjihV djuk 'kq: dj fn;kA 2010 nhikoyh rd eSa fjrs'k ds lkFk mijksDr irsa ij gh jghA mlds ckn lh&214] dj/kuh Ldhe] dkyokM+ jksM+] t;iqj] esa f'k¶V gks x;sA ogka ij Hkh fjrs'k vkSj mlds ifjokjokyksa us ekjihV o xkyh xykSPk djrs jgsA esjh ru[okg ds lkjs iSls tksj tcjnLrh ls ys ysrs FksA vkSj esjs lksus dh ToSyjh Hkh mUgksaus tcjnLrh vius dCts esa ys j[kh FkhA mlds ckn twu 2011 esa
eq>s ?kj ls vyx dj fn;k FkkA vkSj fjrs'k Hkh esjs lkFk fdjk;s ds edku esa jgus yx x,A ogka ij Hkh mldk Øwjrk iwoZd O;ogkj tkjh jgk ftlds dkj.k edku ekfyd us edku [kkyh djok fy;kA mijksDr dkj.kksa ls eSaus etcwjho'k fjrs'k vkSj mldh ekrk ds f[kykQ ,d ngst dk eqdnek 67@2012 fnukad 11 Qjojh 2012 dks iqfyl Fkkuk dj/kuh esa ntZ djk;h FkhA vc ge nksauks ds e/; jkthukek 13 vizsy 2018 dks gks x;k gSA vkSj jkthukesa ds vk/kkj ij eSa mDr eqdnesa dks vkxs ugha pykuk pkgrh gwWA eq>s vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA
uksV %& xokg dk c;ku esjs funsZ'ku esa mlds dgs vuqlkj Vad.kdrkZ }kjk dEI;qVj ij Vafdr fd;k x;k] ftls xokg dks i<+dj lquk;k ok le>k;k x;k rks mlus mDr dFkuksa dks lqu o le> dj lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA”
The complainant/respondent no.2 Divya present in the court has stated that she no longer intends to pursue the FIR, hence, the proceedings be quashed.
Reliance has been placed upon B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs.
State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 Cri.L.J. 2028 , to contend that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in furtherance of interest of justice in matrimonial dispute may bring families at peace by quashing FIR.
(4 of 4)
[CRLMP-2770/2018]
On the prayer made by the petitioners and the complaint/respondent no.2, who are present in person, in view of the judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra), relied by the parties, the present petition is accepted and impugned FIR along with all its subsequent proceedings is quashed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
Mak/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to quash FIR and subsequent proceedings in a matrimonial dispute where parties have settled and the complainant desires to abandon prosecution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.Relied on¶34
B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 Cri.L.J. 2028 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ritesh Agrawal
Geeta Devi
State Of Rajasthan
Divya
Kanwalt Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
