Nirmit Raichandani vs State Of Raj And Anr on 15 December, 2017

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 6449 / 2017
Nirmit Raichandani S/o Shri Bharat Raichandani, R/o House
No.S.E.X- 29, Adipur, District Kutch, Thana Adipur, Gujarat.
1. State of Rajasthan Through PP.

2. Smt. Prerna Raichandani W/o Nirmit Raichandani, D/o Shri
Ashok Bhambhani B/c Sindhi, R/o 21/1, Bhrigu Path, Mansarovar,
Jaipur, Raj.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Giriraj Rajoria for the complainant
Mr. NS Dhakad PP

The present petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 161/2015 registered at Police

Station Mahila Thana (South), Jaipur for offences under Sections

498A and 406 IPC.

Respondent Prerna Raichandani on 5.2.2013 at Gujarat

was married with the petitioner Nirmit Raichandani as per Hindu

customs and rites. During subsistence of marriage, differences

arose and the respondent no.2 had lodged FIR No. 161/2015 at

Police Station Mahila Thana (South), Jaipur for offences under

Sections 498A and 406 IPC. During the pendency of the

proceedings, better sense prevailed and a compromise has been

effected between the parties to amicably resolve the dispute.

(2 of 3)

Respondent no.2 Prerna Raichandani who is present in

the court has been identified by her counsel Mr. Giriraj Rajoria.

Prerna Raichandani has stated that parties have

decided to file a divorce petition and her Stridhan including

jewellery has been returned to her and further stated that it has

been agreed that she will be paid Rs.Eight Lakhs towards

permanent alumni. She further stated that out of Eight Lakhs, she

has already been paid Rs. Six Lakhs. The complainant aggrieved

wife has agreed to quashing of impugned FIR along with all

subsequent proceedings.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the compromise effected between the parties was presented

before the trial court and the court of Metropolitan Magistrate,

No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, on 28.10.2017 accepted the

compromise qua offence under Section 406 IPC as the same is

compoundable. However, the said court rejected the compromise

qua offence under Section 498A IPC on the ground that the same

is non-compoundable.

The learned counsel for the parties have jointly relied

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.

On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the

parties, in view of the judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra),

relied by the parties, the present petition is accepted and
(3 of 3)

impugned FIR along with all its subsequent proceedings is




Leave a Comment

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