HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 640 / 2018
1. Mahendra Kumar Soni S/o Radhyshyam Soni, Aged About 28
Years, By Caste Soni, R/o Dhaniyo Ki Kotdi, Bhilwara.
2. Radhey Shyam Soni S/o Jamna Lal, Aged About 55 Years, By
Caste Soni, R/o Dhaniyo Ki Kotdi, Bhilwara.
3. Yashoda Soni W/o Radhey Shyam, Aged About 52 Years, By
Caste Soni, R/o Dhaniyo Ki Kotdi, Bhilwara.
4. Jitendra Soni S/o Radhey Shyam, Aged About 32 Years, By
Caste Soni, R/o Dhaniyo Ki Kotdi, Bhilwara.
5. Meenakashi Soni W/o Jitendra, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste
Soni, R/o Dhaniyo Ki Kotdi, Bhilwara.
6. Neelam Soni D/o Radhey Shyam, Aged About 27 Years, By
Caste Soni, R/o Dhaniyo Ki Kotdi, Bhilwara.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Smt. Heena W/o Mahendra Kumar D/o Smt. Bhagwati Lal Ji
Soni, By Caste Soni, R/o Richhed Thana, Tehsil Gadbore, District
Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
__
Petitioner No.2 present in person.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ravi Bhansali Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Vipul Dharnia.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit, P.P.
Mr.Ravi Purohit.
Respondent No.2 present in person.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
27/02/2018
The instant misc. petition has been filed seeking quashing of
the proceedings of the F.I.R. No.12/2018 registered at the Police
Station Charbhuja, District Rajsamand for the offences under
Sections 498A and 406 IPC on the basis of the compromise.
The respondent No.2 is the first informant and the petitioner
No.1 is her husband.
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-640/2018]
The learned counsel representing the respective parties i.e.
accused petitioners including husband and the respondent No.2
wife, submit that the litigating spouses have mutually decided to
terminate their marital ties and have filed an application under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce.
The petitioner has paid a lumpsum lifetime maintenance amount
to the tune of Rs.4 lacs to the respondent No.2 through a bank
transfer. A mutual compromise dated 17.2.2018 executed inter-se
between the parties has been annexed with the petition in which,
the parties have agreed to got the cases lodged inter-se between
them terminated through compromise. They thus, submit that the
proceedins going on in the trial court against the accused
petitioners should be quashed.
In this view of the matter and looking to the guidelines
issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC-426, it is
apparent that allowing continuance of proceedings of impugned
FIR against the petitioners any further would not be expedient in
the interest of justice. If the proceedings of the impugned FIR are
allowed to continue, it may result into the compromise being
unsettled.
Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed. The F.I.R.
No.12/2018 registered at the Police Station Charbhuja, District
Rajsamand and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken
thereunder against the petitioners, is quashed. However, it is
made clear that if the petitioner resiles or takes any action which
leads to the failure of the proceedings under Section 13B of the
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-640/2018]
Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent No.2 complainant shall be at
liberty to seek revival of these criminal proceedings by filing an
appropriate application before this Court.
Stay petition is also disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.
/tarun goyal/