HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2253 / 2014
1. Jagjeet Singh S/o Shri Buta Singh, by caste Kamboj Sikh,
resident of 71 GB Tehsil Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

2. Gurmej Kaur W/o Shri Buta Singh, by caste Kamboj Sikh,
resident of 71 GB Tehsil Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

3. Kashmir Singh S/o Shri Buta Singh, by caste Kamboj Sikh,
resident of 71 GB Tehsil Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

4. Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Buta Singh, by caste Kamboj Sikh,
resident of 71 GB Tehsil Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

5. Baljeet Kaur D/o Shri Buta Singh, W/o Guljar Singh, by caste
Kamboj Sikh, resident of Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.

6. Guljar Singh S/o Kewal Singh by caste Kamboj Sikh, resident of
Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.

—-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan.
2. Jagir Singh S/o Shri Puran Singh, by caste Kamboj Sikh,
resident of 78, Bharat Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.

3. Jaspal Kaur D/o Jagir Singh by caste Kamboj Sikh, resident of
78, Bharat Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S.Thind
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP and Mr.
S.R.Godara
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
19/01/2018

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned P.P. and
(2 of 4)
[CRLMP-2253/2014]

the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on

record.

By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the

petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order

dated 26.6.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Sri

Ganganagar in revision affirming the order dated 11.4.2005

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class No.1, Sri

Ganganagar in Cr. Case No. 126/2005 whereby cognizance was

taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 406,

498A and 384 IPC.

The petitioners herein are matrimonial relatives of the

respondent no.3 Jaspal Kaur who was married to petitioner no. 1

Jagjeet Singh. It is an admitted position from record that in the

year 2004 the parties presented an application under Section 13B

of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of District Judge,

Kapurthala which came to be allowed vide judgment dated

1.2.2005. In the said judgment following finding was recorded by

the learned District Judge on the basis of the consensus of the

parties:-

“It was further agreed to between the parties, that
they both would withdraw all the civil and criminal cases
pending before various courts, filed by them against
each other. It was further agreed to between the
parties, that petitioner no. 1 would not claim
maintenance in future. It was further stated that the
petition had not been filed, in collusion with each other.

……….

Jaspal Kaur petitioner no.1 also stated that she had
received permanent alimony and her dowry articles
(3 of 4)
[CRLMP-2253/2014]

from Jagjeet Singh petitioner no.2.”

However, before filing of the application u/s. 13B, the

respondent complainant had filed an F.I.R. No. 220/2002 against

the petitioner. The police thoroughly investigated the matter and

based on the compromise between the parties a negative final

report was submitted. However, the complainant protested and

her statement was recorded in connection with the said negative

final report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 17.6.2003 and in the said

statement, she stuck to the allegation of harassment on account

of dowry, criminal breach of trust and extortion etc. against the

accused petitioners. Based on said statement, the trial court

proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners in the above

terms and the order passed by the trial court also affirmed by the

learned Revisional Court on 26.6.2014.

Having appreciated the arguments advanced at the bar and

considering the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in

the case of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Agarwal reported in (2005)3

SC-299, this Court is of the firm opinion that allowing the present

proceedings to continue against the petitioners despite the fact

that marriage of the parties stands dissolved long back by mutual

consent with the categoric concession of the respondent Mst.

Jaspal Kaur that she would get the criminal case terminated,

would amount to gross abuse of the process of law.

In this view of the matter, the misc. petition deserves to be

and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 11.4.2005

passed by learned Judl. Magistrate, Ist Class, Sri Ganganagar and
(4 of 4)
[CRLMP-2253/2014]

the order dated 26.6.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge

No.1, Sri Ganganagar are set aside and all proceedings sought to

be taken thereunder against the petitioners for the offences under

Sections 406, 498A and 384 IPC are quashed.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

/sushil/