SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Naresh Aswani And Anr vs State Of Raj And Anr on 4 April, 2018


S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1047/2018

1. Naresh Aswani S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Aswani, R/o Plot No. 4-
Ga-2, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Ashok Kumar Aswani S/o Late Shri Magan Lal, B/c Sindhi, R/o
Plot No. 4-Ga-2, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.



1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

2. Smt. Nandani Aswani W/o Shri Naresh Aswani D/o Shri Arjun
Das Burbani, B/c Sindhi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Plot No. A-
79, Krishna Colony, Near Swami Santi Prakash Dharmshala,
Ramgarh, Jaipur.


For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Tanwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Lal Sharma
For the State : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor


/ Order


Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of First Information Report No.173/2014

registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (North) for

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 472, 323, 341, 354 (A)

(B) (C) (D) and 420 I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition


Briefly stated the respondent No.2 – Smt. Nandani Aswani

on 06.03.2010 as per Hindu Customs Rites was married with Naresh

Aswani. Differences arose between the parties leading to registration of

First Information Report. During pendency of litigation, better sense
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1047/2018]

prevailed and on 07.02.2018 the parties affected a compromise and

amicably settled the dispute.

Smt. Nandani Aswani, complainant-respondent No.2 is

present in person before this Court. She has been identified by her

Counsel Mr. Shyam Lal Sharma.

Smt. Nandani Aswani has stated that during subsistence of

marriage, a son namely Bhavya was born. It is stated that as per

compromise, the family of the petitioners-accused have agreed to pay

Rs.40,00,000/-, out of which Rs.20,00,000/- is to be paid to minor son

Bhavya, whereas remaining Rs.20,00,000/- to Smt. Nandani Aswami,

respondent/ aggrieved-wife. It has also been agreed between the

parties that the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- given to son – Bhavya shall

be kept in the Fixed Deposit, till he attains the age of majority.

The learned counsel appearing for the parties have

submitted that the compromise was presented before the trial Court

and the trial Court on 07.02.2018 had passed the following order :-

“,0ih0ih0 mifLFkrA
vfHk;qDr ujs’k vklokuh o v’kksd dqekj vklokuh e; vf/koDrk mi0A izkFkhZ;k ufUnuh
vklokuh e; vf/koDrk mi0 i{kdkjku us la;qDr :i ls jkthukek gksuk tkfgj fd;k ,oa
ikoyh vkt gh ryc fd;s tkus dk fuosnu djus ij ikoyh vkt is’kh esa yh xbZA
i{kdkjku }kjk la;qDr :i ls 390] 498,] o 406 vkbZ ih lh esa jkthukek is’k fd;kA ftls
iz’u ij fof/k vuqlkj rLnhd fd;k x;kA vfHk;qDr ds tfj;s jkthukek lsDlu 406
vkbZ0ih0lh0 ds vijk/k ls nks”keqDr okfNr fd;k x;kA lsD’ku 498 , vkbZ ih lh lekuh;
ugh gksus ls jkthukek mDr /kkjk esa rLnhd ugh fd;k x;kA vfHk;qDr ds fo:) lsDlu
498 , dk vkjksi ‘ks”k gSA
Lkky vfHk;kstu esa lk{; is’k djus gsrq volj pkgkA ikoyh okLrs lk{; vfHk;kstu esa
fnukad 3-3-18 dks is’k gksA
ftyk ,oa lS’ku U;k;ky;

t;iqj egkuxj.”

On perusal of above order, it is apparent that the

compromise was accepted by the trial Court, qua offence under Section

406 I.P.C. on the ground that the said offence is compoundable but

same was rejected, qua offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. for the

reason that the said offence is non-compoundable.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1047/2018]

The learned counsels 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 ahead.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties

and 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 in [(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.

No.173/2014 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City

(North) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 472, 323,

341, 354 (A) (B) (C) (D) and 420 I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all subsequent proceedings is




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