HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5825/2018
1. Ravi Sharma S/o Shri Ramprasad B/c Brahmin, R/o 222,
Sriramnagar Extension, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur
2. Smt. Ashok Devi W/o Shri Ramprasad B/c Brahmin, R/o
222, Sriramnagar Extension, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara,
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Seema Sharma W/o Ravi Sharma D/o Late Shri Manohar
Lal Sharma B/c Brahman, R/o Vishawkarma Body Repair,
B/h New Bus Stand, Dcm Road, Kota (Raj.)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Singodiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP
Mr. Rohit Saini
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
The present petition has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.137/2016 registered at Police
Station Mahila Thana, Kota for the offences under Sections 498A
and 406 IPC.
In the present case, quashing of FIR has been sought
on the basis of compromise.
Seema Sharma, respondent no.2 is present in the
court. She has been identified by her counsel Mr. Rohit Saini. Mr.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5825/2018]
Ravi Sharma petitioner no.1 is also present in the court and he
has been identified by his counsel Mr. S.K. Singodiya.
Seema Sharma, respondent no.2 has stated that on
25.5.2013 she was married with petitioner no.1 as per Hindu
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
Seema Sharma, respondent no.2 has stated that the
petitioner no.1 Ravi Sharma has agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/-
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-1 presented before the
trial court. The trial court vide order dated 7.8.2018 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 offence under Section 498A IPC on the ground
that the said offence is non-compoundable.
Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have jointly
submitted that they shall remain bound by compromise Annexure-
1 affected between the parties.
Seema Sharma, respondent no.2 has submitted that
she has received in all Rs.2,50,000/- 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
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5825/2018]
is pending in the Family Court, Kota. It is submitted that the
divorce petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act is
coming for final motion on 2.2.2019.
Seema 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
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
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)