Siddarth Mogra vs State & Anr on 25 July, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3144 / 2014
Siddarth Mogra S/o Sh. Karan Singh Ji Mogra, resident of 4,
Puspak Comlex Kantheira, Hanuman Road, Palanpur,Banaskanta
(Gujarat)

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan.

2. Ms. Reecha Mogra D/o Sh. Lalit Bagrecha, resident of House
No.40-41 Priyadarshani Nagar, Bela, Udaipur.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Rajat Dave, for the complainant
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
25/07/2017

1. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings pertaining to

Regular Criminal Case No.89/2011 pending trial before the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur for offence

punishable under Sections 498A, 406 IPC arisen out of FIR

No.79/2010 of police Station Mahila Thana, Udaipur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and

respondent No.2 were married on 13.02.2005. The present FIR

was registered on 25.08.2010. The disputes between the parties

were resolved by an agreement dated 12.04.2012. The agreement

dated 12.04.2012 culminated into payment of permanent alimony

of Rs.10,00,000/- and a decree of divorce by mutual consent
(2 of 6)
[CRLMP-3144/2014]

under Section 13 (B) on 18.12.2012.

3. Counsel for the petitioner states that thus, the parties

had entered into a compromise and the chain of events clearly

indicate that criminal complaint surviving against the present

petitioner is abuse of process of law. Counsel for the petitioner has

further pointed out from the agreement in which condition No.8

clearly stipulate the withdrawal of the present criminal

proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal Ors.

Reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 719, the

relevant portion of this judgment which is as follows :-

” (5) In the compromise petition, referred to
herein above, both the parties had agreed to
withdraw all the civil and criminal cases filed by
each against the other. It is pursuant to this
compromise, the above divorce as sought for by
the appellant was granted by the husband and
pursuant to the said compromise deed the
appellant also withdrew Criminal Case No.63 of
2002 on the file of the Family Court, Nainital
which was a complaint filed under Section 125 of
the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance. It
is on the basis of the submission made on behalf
of the appellant and on the basis of the terms of
the compromise, said case came to be dismissed.

However, so far as the complaint under Sections
498A, 323 and 506IPC and under Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned,
which is the subject matter of this appeal, the
appellant did not take any steps to withdraw the
same. It is in those circumstances, a quashing
(3 of 6)
[CRLMP-3144/2014]

petition was filed before the High Court which
came to be partially allowed on the ground of the
territorial jurisdiction, against the said order the
appellant has preferred this appeal.

(6) From the above narrated facts, it is clear
that in the compromise petition filed before the
Family Court, the appellant admitted that she has
received Stridhan and maintenance in lump sum
and that she will not be entitled to maintenance
of any kind in future. She also undertook to
withdraw all proceedings civil and criminal filed
and initiated by her against the respondents
within one month of the compromise deed which
included the complaint under Sections
498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act from which
complaint this appeal arises. In the said
compromise, the respondent- husband agreed to
withdraw his petition filed under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Senior
Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and also agreed to
give a consent divorce as sought for by the
appellant.

(7) It is based on the said compromise the
appellant obtained a divorce as desired by her
underSection 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and
in partial compliance of the terms of the
compromise she withdrew the criminal case filed
under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code
but for reasons better known to her she did not
withdraw that complaint from which this appeal
arises. That apart after the order of the High
Court quashing the said complaint on the ground
of territorial jurisdiction, she has chosen to file
this appeal. It is in this background, we will have
to appreciate the merits of this appeal.

(4 of 6)
[CRLMP-3144/2014]

(8) Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, however, contended that though the
appellant had signed the compromise deed with
the above-mentioned terms in it, the same was
obtained by the respondent-husband and his
family under threat and coercion and in fact she
did not receive lump sum maintenance and her
Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult
to accept this argument in the background of the
fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the
respondent-husband has given her a consent
divorce which she wanted thus had performed his
part of the obligation under the compromise
deed. Even the appellant partially performed her
part of the obligations by withdrawing her
criminal complaint filed under Section 125. It is
true that she had made a complaint in writing to
the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C.
proceedings were pending that the compromise
deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew
the same and gave a statement before the said
court affirming the terms of the compromise
which statement was recorded by the Family
Court and the proceedings were dropped and a
divorce was obtained. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the appellant having received the
relief she wanted without contest on the basis of
the terms of the compromise, we cannot now
accept the argument of the learned counsel for
the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the
appellant indicates that the criminal complaint
from which this appeal arises was filed by the
wife only to harass the respondents.

(9) In view of the above said subsequent
events and the conduct of the appellant, it would
be an abuse of the process of the court if the
(5 of 6)
[CRLMP-3144/2014]

criminal proceedings from which this appeal
arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of
the considered opinion to do complete justice, we
should while dismissing this appeal also quash
proceedings arising from the Criminal Case
No.Cr.No.224/2003 registered in Police Station,
Bilaspur, (Distt.Rampur) filed underSections
498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
respondents herein.”

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that

certain aspects of the matter were not complied by the petitioner

himself as he has not withdrawn a case which was mentioned on

page 6 of the agreement i.e. a protest petition against an FR

pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur.

Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that complainant is a

lady and was persuaded and dragged into the compromise and

therefore, the present proceedings ought not to be interfered with.

6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the

record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that once a

compromise has been arrived between the parties on 12.04.2012

and the terms of the compromise include bringing an end to

proceeding of the present Regular Criminal Case No.89/2011

pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

No.2, Udaipur and that compromise was acted upon the between

the parties which resulted into payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as

permanent alimony and also the divorce petition by mutual

consent in which the decree was granted on 18.12.2012 then it

was not open for the respondent to step back and say that she
(6 of 6)
[CRLMP-3144/2014]

was dragged into the compromise. The complainant is an

educated lady who has with open eyes accepted the terms of

compromise so as to bring the present proceedings to an end and

the petition seeking divorce by mutual consent remained pending

for about six months and later on was decreed which shows that

the application of mind was there by both the parties for parting

ways by mutual consent.

7. In light of the discussion and precedent law cited at

this Court, the present misc. petition is allowed and entire

proceedings pertaining to Regular Cr. Case No.89/2011 (State Vs.

Siddarth) pending trial before the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate No.2 Udaipur are quashed and set aside.

8. It is however made clear that in case any proceeding is

being persuaded by the petitioner against the respondent contrary

to the terms of the agreement dated 12.04.2012 then the

petitioner shall be required to bring those proceedings to an end.

We record undertaking of the counsel for the petitioner to abide by

the same.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

sudheer

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *