SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Hitesh Shandilya S/O Shri Balveer … vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 5 September, 2018


S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5360/2018

Hitesh Shandilya S/o Shri Balveer Shandilya B/c Brahmin, R/o Plot
No.136, Jeen Mata Nagar, Shekhawati Marg, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara,
Ps Kardhani, Jaipur, At Present A.c.i.t.b.p. Lohitpur, Arunachal



1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Rajasthan.

2. Kavita Sharma W/o Hitesh Shandilya, D/o Shri Girdhari Lal
Sharma B/c Brahmin, R/o House No.211, Ridhi Sidhi Nagar,
Benar Road, Harmara, Jaipur.


For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Gaur
For the State : Mr. Prakash Thakuria, P.P.


/ Order

Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of

impugned F.I.R. No.134/2015 registered at Women Police Station Jaipur

City (West) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323,

328, 342 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

In the present case, quashing of impugned F.I.R. has been

sought on the basis of compromise affected between the parties.

Kavita Sharma, complainant/respondent No.2 is present in

person before this Court. She has been identified by her Counsel – Mr.

R.K. Gaur.

The learned counsel appearing for the parties have

submitted that the Investigating Agency only submitted charge-sheet
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-5360/2018]

for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section

34 I.P.C.

Counsel appearing for the parties have further submitted

that a compromise was presented before the trial Court. The trial Court

accepted the compromise, qua offence under Section 406 I.P.C. but

rejected the same, qua offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. as said

offence is non-compoundable.

The order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the trial Court for

ready reference is reproduced herein below :-


,ihih mifLFkr ifjokfn;k Jhefr dfork ‘kekZ o vfHk;qDr fgrs’k dh vksj ls jkthukek gksus
ij jkthukek rLnhd gsrq is’k djus ij ikoyh is’kh esa yh xbZA i{kdkjku }kjk izLrqr
jkthukek /kkjk 498,] 406 vkbZihlh esa jkthukek dh iqLr ij /kkjk 406 vkbZihlh dh gn
rd ckn tkWp rLnhd fd;k x;k jkthuke dh bckjr mHk; i{kdkjku dks i+dj lqukbZ o
lekbZ xbZA ifjokfn;k dfork ‘kekZ dks Jh pUnz’ks[kj nk/khp] ,MoksdsV o vfHk;qDr fgrs’k
dks Jh lukru lksuh] ,MoksdsV us f’kuk[r fd;k vfHk;qDr fgrs’k dks /kkjk 406 vkbZihlh dh
gn rd jkthukes ds vk/kkj ij nks”k eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k esa /kkjk 498, vkbZihlh dk
vijk/k ‘ks”k cprk gSA ikoyh okLrs lk{; vfHk;kstu fnukad 18-08-2018 dks is’k gksA

vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ,ao
egkuxj eftLVªsV Øela[;k20
t;iqj egkuxj.”

Kavita Sharma complainant/respondent No.2, present in

person, has stated that she was married, as per Hindu Customs Rites,

on 04.02.2014 with petitioner – Hitesh Shandilya.

During subsistence of marriage, differences arose and

complainant/respondent No.2 was compelled to file impugned F.I.R.

Complainant/respondent No.2 – Kavita Sharma present in

person, has stated that the matter has been amicably resolved between

the parties. She has further stated that the petitioner has agreed to pay

Rs.10,00,000/- to her. She has stated that out of Rs.10,00,000/-,

Rs.3,00,000/- has already been paid to her and the banker cheque

amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- has been handed over to her today in the


Copy of the banker cheque handed over to complainant/

respondent No.2 in the Court is taken on the record.

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-5360/2018]

Kavita Sharma complainant/respondent No.2, present in

person, has stated that a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu

Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage has already been filed and the

same is coming up for final motion before the Family Court No.1, Jaipur.

She has submitted that balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be paid

to her after dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent. Lastly,

Kavita Sharma has submitted that she no longer intend to pursue the

present F.I.R. and the same be quashed.

Counsel appearing for the respective parties have jointly

prayed that since the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved,

the criminal cases pending between the parties as well as impugned

F.I.R. be quashed, so that the parties can pursue their life and move


I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties

and have perused the contents of the instant petition.

It has been often held by the Courts that hour of the

compromise is the finest hour between the parties and the Court while

exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash

the proceedings, even qua non-compoundable offences.

Furthermore, in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of

Harayana, reported as [(2003) 4 S.C.C. 675], the Apex Court has

opined that although offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is non-

compoundable, but in cases of matrimonial dispute to bring families at

peace, if the parties arrive at compromise, then proceedings, qua

offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. can be quashed by invoking its

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Considering the fact that both the parties have resolved

their matrimonial dispute and the joint prayer made by the parties and

in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi

[supra], the present petition is allowed. The impugned F.I.R.

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-5360/2018]

No.134/2015 registered at Women Police Station Jaipur City (West) for

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 328, 342 and 120-

B of Indian Penal Code, is quashed, along with all subsequent




Powered by TCPDF (

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation