HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7200/2018
Manish Kejriwal S/o Shri Banwari Lal Kejriwal B/c Agarwal, Aged
About 36 Years, R/o C-305, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2. Smt. Himani Sharma D/o Rajendra Prasad Sharma, W/o
Shri Manish Kejriwal B/c Brahman, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o 32, Gyan Vihar, Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahipal Kharra
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek PP
Mr. P.L. Hissaria for respondent no.2
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
-/Order/-
27/11/2018
The present petition has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.173/2014 registered at Police
Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) for the offences under
Sections 498A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
In the present case, quashing of FIR has been sought
on the basis of compromise.
Smt. Himani Sharma, respondent no.2 is present in the
court. She has been identified by her counsel Mr. P.L. Hissaria. Mr.
Manish Kejriwal petitioner is also present in the court and he has
been identified by his counsel Mr. Mahipal Kharra.
Smt. Himani Sharma, respondent no.2 has stated that
on 12.2.2009 she was married with petitioner as per Hindu
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-7200/2018]
customs and rites. It is submitted that due to difference of
opinion, she was compelled to lodge the impugned FIR.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted
that due to intervention of respectables, elders of the family and
common relations, the matrimonial dispute has been amicably
resolved.
Smt. Himani Sharma, respondent no.2 has stated that
the petitioner Manish Kejriwal has agreed to pay Rs.15 Lakhs
towards Stridhan, expenses on marriage, permanent alimony and
cost of litigation etc.
Learned counsel for the parties have drawn attention of
this Court to the compromise Annexure-2 presented before the
trial court. The trial court vide order dated 3..1.2018 accepted the
said compromise for the offences under Sections 406 IPC and
acquitted petitioner qua said offence as the same is
compoundable, however, the trial court rejected the said
compromise qua offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act on the ground that the said offences are
non-compoundable.
Petitioner and respondent no.2 have jointly submitted
that they shall remain bound by compromise Annexure-2 affected
between the parties.
Smt. Himani Sharma, respondent no.2 has submitted
that she has received in all Rs.15 Lakhs paid by petitioner. She
has submitted that the divorce petition under Section 13B of
Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual
consent is pending in the Family Court No.2, Jaipur.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-7200/2018]
Smt. Himani Sharma, complainant/respondent no.2 has
prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed as she no longer
intends to pursue the same.
The learned counsel for the parties have jointly relied
upon B.S. Joshi Ors. vs. State of Haryana Anr., 2003
Cri.L.J. 2028, to contend that this Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in furtherance of interest of
justice in matrimonial dispute may bring families at peace by
quashing FIR.
On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the
parties, in view of the judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra),
relied by the parties, the present petition is accepted and
impugned FIR along with all its subsequent proceedings is
quashed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)