HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 4805 / 2015
1. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Omprakash Sharma, aged
about 30 years, By caste Bharmin, R/o B-1, Alkapuri, Murlipura
Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Ompraksh Sharma S/o Shri Bholaram Sharma, aged about
60 years, By caste Bharmin, R/o village Bilandpur, Tehsil
Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Smt. Meva Devi W/o Omprakash Sharma, aged about 57
years, By caste Bharmin, R/o Village Bilandpur, Tehsil Shahpura,
Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.
2. Smt. Abhilata Sharma D/o Shri Bhawani Shankar Sharma,
aged about 30 years, By caste Bhramin, R/o Plot No.31, Bajrang
Vihar, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Godara, PP
Mr. Ravindra Paliwal.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as also
learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 and learned
This misc. petition has been preferred on behalf of the
accused-petitioners to quash and set-aside the order dated
22.08.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate No.31, Jaipur Metropolitan in Cr. Case No.1446/2011
(2 of 5)
titled as State Vs. Ashok and Ors., whereby the application filed by
complainant – Smt. Abhilata Sharma on 03.05.2014 was
dismissed being not pressed by her.
Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that
after the amicable settlement of all the disputes pending between
the parties relating to matrimonial ties, an application was filed on
03.05.2014 by the complainant that she does not want to continue
the proceedings with regard to FIR No.258/2011, registered at PS
Murlipura, Jaipur City(South), which was lodged by her on account
of some misunderstanding. After a period of more than one year,
the said application was not pressed by the complainant on
28.08.2015, therefore, the learned trial court rejected this
application dated 03.05.2014 vide impugned order dated
Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has drawn
attention of this Court to the application jointly filed by petitioner
Ashok Kumar Sharma and respondent-complainant Smt. Abhilata
Sharma before the learned Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan
on 27.09.2013. In para 11 of the said application, it has been
specifically mentioned that on account of amicable settlement of
all the disputes between the parties, Abhilata Sharma would
withdraw all the proceedings pending against the petitioner in
various courts including Cr. Case No.1446/2011 pending before
the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.31, Jaipur
Metropolitan arising out of FIR No.258/2011, PS Murlipura, Jaipur
City (South). Besides this case, Case No.5/2013 under Section
125 Cr.P.C. was also agreed to be withdrawn.
(3 of 5)
Learned counsel submits that on the basis of this
compromise application dated 27.09.2013, learned Family Court
No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan passed a judgment decree dated
22.04.2014 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
whereby decree of divorce was granted on the basis of mutual
consent. Counsel submits that later on, complainant Abhilata
Sharma resiled from the compromise and withdrew the application
filed in Cr. Case No.1446/2011 on 03.05.2014 by not pressing it
on 22.08.2015, which was unwarranted on her part.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of
the compromise arrived at between the parties on 27.09.2013, Cr.
Case No.1446/2011 was also to be withdrawn, but since the
complainant has resiled from her commitment, the proceedings of
case aforesaid deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon the following judgments :-
(I)- Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal Ors.,
reported in (2005) 3 SCC 299.
(II)- Mohd. Shamim Ors. Vs. Nahid Begum (Smt.)
Anr., reported in (2005) 3 SCC 302.
(III)- Mukesh Jangid Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Cr.
Misc. petition No.4737/2014 alongwith 02
connected matters decided on 22.09.2016.
(IV)- Rajesh Khanna Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3723.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant
(4 of 5)
has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that an FIR
No.427/2012, was got lodged by the petitioner through one of his
friends Rinku Sharma at PS JDA, Jaipur for the offences under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B IPC. After investigation, FR
(Negative report) was filed by the police but Rinku Sharma
preferred protest petition, upon which cognizance has been taken
against complainant – Abhilata Sharma. Counsel for the
respondent submits that since this matter had not been
withdrawn, the complainant-respondent has withdrawn the
application filed by her on 03.05.2014.
I have considered the arguments advanced by rival sides.
On perusal of the compromise filed before the Court of
learned Family Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan on 27.09.2013, it
is found that it was not settled between the parties to withdraw
the case arising out of FIR No.427/2012. In view of this, the
complainant-respondent was not right in withdrawing the
application dated 03.05.2014 on account of continuation of this
case. Moreover, this case was not registered by the petitioner.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has resiled from his
commitment, on account of which the complainant was justified in
withdrawing the application dated 03.05.2014.
On perusal of judgment relied upon by learned counsel for
the petitioners, it appears that once the parties have arrived at
the compromise and settled to withdraw various matters pending
before the Court, if one of them reslies, despite the fact that the
other party has performed his part of settlement, then the
proceedings pending before the Court deserves to be quashed and
(5 of 5)
The facts and circumstances of the case in hand are similar
to those on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for
Since all the matters arising out of the matrimonial ties
between the parties were compromised and application dated
27.09.2013 was filed by them before the learned Family Court
with the undertaking of the respondent No.2 to withdraw the Cr.
Case No.1446/2011 for the offences under Sections 498A 406
IPC, this Court is of the view that allowing the proceedings of the
aforesaid case will tantamount to abuse of process of law and
therefore, it should not be allowed to continue.
In the result, the misc. petition is allowed and the
proceedings in Cr. Case No.1446/2011 pending before the Court of
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.31, Jaipur
Metropolitan is quashed and set-aside.