HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1950 / 2016
1. Sumer Mal S/o Kheemraj Ji, by caste Chopra Jain, R/o
Siwana, at present Kaddappa, Andhra Pradesh.
2. Leela Bai W/o Sumer Mal, by caste Jain (Chopra), R/o
Siwana, at present Kaddappa, Andhra Pradesh.
3. Santosh Kumar @ Praveen Kumar Chopra, S/o Sumer Mal,
by caste Jain (Chopra), R/o Near Oswal Nohara, at present
B.K.M. Street, Gokul Lodge Ke Pass, Krishna Talkies,
Kaddappa, Andhra Pradesh.
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Madhu Devi W/o Praveen Kumar Chopra, by caste Jain,
Resident of Siwana, Tehsil Siwaran, District Barmer.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj gupta.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP.
Mr. Sidharth Joshi.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
petitioners herein have approached this Court for quashing of the
order dated 04.12.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
(First Class), Siwana, District Barmer in Criminal Case
No.170/2010 whereby, the learned Trial Judge directed framing of
charge against the petitioners for the offences under Sections
(2 of 6)
498A, 406 and 323 IPC.
Quashment of the impugned order and all subsequent
proceedings is sought on the ground that the respondent No.2
complainant, who was married to petitioner No.3 Santosh Kumar
@ Praveen Kumar Chopra, voluntarily entered into a compromise
with the petitioner No.3 before the competent court at Bijapur
(Karnataka) in proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C., and also got culminated the
marriage between the parties through mutual consent under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. While signing the joint
memo submitted in the Family court at Bijapur, the respondent
Madhu Devi clearly agreed that she would get the proceedings of
the present Criminal Case No.170/2010 withdrawn through
compromise. A consolidated amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid by
the petitioner Santosh Kumar to the respondent complainant Mst.
Madhu by way of permanent alimony while executing the
On the previous date of hearing, Shri Sidharth Joshi, learned
counsel representing the complainant, vehemently opposed the
submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and prayed for
time to keep his client present in the court. He urged that there is
clear interpolation in the joint compromise memo on the strength
whereof, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings and the
lines relating to the withdrawal of the instant case have been
inserted posteriorly by sheer forgery. He thus urged that the
compromise cannot be acted upon and the parties may be
directed to remain present in the Court so as to verify the factum
(3 of 6)
of compromise. The said submission of Shri Joshi was considered
justified and thus, the learned counsel was directed to keep their
clients present in the Court.
Today, when the matter was taken up, the petitioner Santosh
Kumar @ Praveen Kumar Chopra and the complainant Mst. Madhu
Devi were present in the Court. On pertinent query being put by
the Court, Mst. Madhu Devi categorically admitted that she
voluntarily compromised the entire dispute with the petitioners
herein and her marriage with the petitioner Santosh Kumar had
been annulled by mutual consent under the decree issued by the
competent court at Bijapur. She also admitted having received a
lump sum amount of Rs.7,00,000/- by way of permanent
alimony, etc. from her erstwhile husband Santosh Kumar @
Praveen Kumar Chopra.
In the background of these facts, the plea putforth by Shri
Sidharth Joshi that the compromise was procured by fraud and
that there are interpolations therein is per se a figment of
imagination and nothing beyond that. It is true that the lines
pertaining to compromise and termination of the present case
appear to be inserted in the compromise application in a different
handwriting but, had there being an iota of truth in the aspersion
cast by Shri Joshi then the respondent would certainly have filed
an application in the court at Bijapur for recalling the orders
passed in pursuance of the said compromise. Shri Joshi also tried
to portray that his client is illiterate and thus, probably was made
to sign the compromise deed while keeping her in dark about the
contents thereof. However, the said aspersion was also found to be
(4 of 6)
incorrect because on a pertinent query being made by the Court,
the respondent Mst. Madhu Devi stated that she had studied till
10th standard. She has signed the compromise deed in English.
Shri Pankaj Gupta drew the Court’s attention to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit
Kumar Agrawal Ors. reported in 2004(4) Crimes (SC) 399
and this Court’s Judgment in the case of Siddarth Mogra vs.
State Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3144/2014)
decided on 25.07.2017 and urged that once the complainant
agreed to withdraw all the criminal cases in the application filed
before the Family court, she cannot be allowed to resile from the
compromise at a later stage and that in the event of such a
situation, this Court has to come to the aid of the litigant who had
performed his part of the agreement by exercising the inherent
powers for quashing the frivolous criminal proceedings.
Shri Joshi, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the
submissions advanced by Shri Pankaj Gupta and urged that the
compromise is not genuine and hence, should not be acted upon.
He further urged that the complainant’s streedhan articles have
not been returned to her and, therefore, the Court should not
exercise its inherent powers so as to quash the proceedings at this
I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at Bar
and have gone through the material available on record.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court has categorically laid down in
Ruchi Agarwal’s case (supra) that a lady, who has taken
advantage of the compromise filed before the Family Court,
(5 of 6)
cannot be allowed to resile from such compromise when the stage
comes for withdrawal of the criminal proceedings. A bare perusal
of the compromise application admittedly filed by the parties in
the competent court at Bijapur clearly reveals that the litigating
spouses agreed to get terminated all the cases lodged inter se
between them. The complainant received a lump sum alimony of
Rs.7,00,000/- from the accused Santosh Kumar @ Praveen Kumar
Chopra and withdrew the applications filed by her under Section
125 Cr.P.C. and under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.
However, when the stage came for withdrawal of the present case,
she has adopted a difference stance and is opposing the prayer
made by the petitioners for culmination of the present case.
Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances as
emerging from the record, this Court is of the opinion that the
stance of the complainant in opposing the prayer for quashment of
the present proceedings is totally unjustified and unacceptable.
The complainant, having voluntarily taken divorce after accepting
a permanent alimony of Rs.7,00,000/- from the petitioner Santosh
Kumar @ Praveen Kumar Chopra, cannot be allowed to wriggle out
from her stance before the Family Court, Bijapur for opposing the
prayer made in this instant misc. petition seeking quashing of the
proceedings of the present criminal cases.
Accordingly, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is
hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 04.12.2011 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Siwana, District
Barmer whereby, charges were framed against the petitioners for
the offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC and all
(6 of 6)
proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are hereby quashed as
amounting to a gross abuse of process of law.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.