HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
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.

—-Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Madhu Devi W/o Praveen Kumar Chopra, by caste Jain,
Resident of Siwana, Tehsil Siwaran, District Barmer.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj gupta.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP.
Mr. Sidharth Joshi.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
30/01/2018

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)
[CRLMP-1950/2016]

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the present Criminal Case No.170/2010 withdrawn through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

compromise.

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)
[CRLMP-1950/2016]

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)
[CRLMP-1950/2016]

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

stage.

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)
[CRLMP-1950/2016]

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)
[CRLMP-1950/2016]

proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are hereby quashed as

amounting to a gross abuse of process of law.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

Tikam/32