HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5944/2018

1. Pulkit Bhola S/o Shri Rakesh Bhola, R/o A-40, Jaimata
Vaishno Nagar, Gajsinghpura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Raj.
2. Rakesh Bhola S/o Shri Tilak Raj Sharma, R/o A-40,
Jaimata Vaishno Nagar, Gajsinghpura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur,
Raj.
3. Smt. Neelam Bhola W/o Shri Rakesh Bhola, R/o A-40,
Jaimata Vaishno Nagar, Gajsinghpura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur,
Raj.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Staste Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Karnika Sharma W/o Shri Pulkit Bhola, D/o Shri
Baldev Sharma B/c Brahmin, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
10/578, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Raj.
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.S. Tomar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP for State
Mr. Jitendra Singh, for respondent
No.2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Order

29/10/2018
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying that proceedings arising out of FIR No.72/2013, registered
at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur (South) for offences under
Sections 498A, 406, 323, 341, 504, 120B IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, be quashed on the basis of compromise
arrived between the parties.

Smt. Karnika Sharma, complainant-respondent No.2, is
present in court. She has been identified by her counsel Shri
Jitendra Singh.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-5944/2018]

Learned counsels for the parties have vouchsafed the factum
of compromise.

Smt. Karnika Sharma, complainant, has submitted that
parties have obtained divorce and she has been paid Rs.60,000/-
by way of permanent alimony. She has stated that she is pursuing
B.Sc. Nursing Course, whereas petitioner No.1 is doing nothing.

Compromise was presented before the trial court. The trial
court vide order dated 4.4.2018 attested the compromise for
offence under Section 406 IPC, but rejected the same qua
offences under Sections 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act as the said offences are non-compoundable.

Smt. Karnika Sharma, complainant-respondent No.2, who is
present in court, has submitted that in view of compromise
arrived, she no longer intend to pursue the present FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon B.S.
Joshi Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, to
contend that in matrimonial matters, to bring families at peace,
this court while invoking inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. can quash the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings
even for non-compoundable offences.

Taking into account the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the
matrimonial dispute has been resolved by the parties by way of
compromise, present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR
alongwith all subsequent proceedings is quashed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

Govind/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)