SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sunit Mohan Saxena S/O Shri Harish … vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 March, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1776/2019

Sunit Mohan Saxena S/o Shri Harish Prasad Saxena B/c Kayasth,
R/o Bajaj, Village Sanwali, District Sikar.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2. Taru Saxena W/o Sunit Mohan Saxena, D/o Shri Sushil
Kumar Saxena B/c Kayasth, R/o 37/22, Kiran Path,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahala PP
Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur for respondent
no.2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

-/Order/-

13/03/2019

The present petition has been filed under Section 482

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

No.133/2017 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City

(South) for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

In the present case, quashing of FIR has been sought

on the basis of compromise.

Taru Saxena, respondent no.2 is present in the court.

She has been identified by her counsel Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur. Sunit

Mohan Saxena petitioner is also present in the court and he has

been identified by his counsel Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma.

Taru Saxena, respondent no.2 has stated that on

16.2.2010 she was married with petitioner as per Hindu customs
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1776/2019]

and rites and on 24.12.2013 she has given birth to a daughter

named Mansi Saxena. 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.

Learned counsel for the parties have drawn attention of

this Court to the compromise Annexure-2 annexed with the

present petition. It is submitted that the compromise was

presented before the trial court and the trial court vide order

dated 25.2.2019 accepted the said compromise qua offence under

Section 406 IPC on the ground that the said offence is

compoundable and rejected the same qua offence under Section

498A IPC as the said offence is non-compoundable.

The order dated 25.2.2019 passed by the trial court

reads as under:-

“25+-02-2019
APO mi0A izkfFkZ;k r: lDlSuk o vfHk- lquhr eksgu mi-A
izkfFkZ;k r: }kjk izk- i ckcr jkthukek dh vuqefr fn;s tkus tfj;s
vf/k- is’k djus ij ik- vkt is’kh esa yh xbZA izkfFkZ;k r: dh vksj ls
jkt dey xkSM+ o /kehj }kjk odkyrukek is’k fd;kA ‘kkfey ik- jgsA
jkthukek U/s 406 IPC Compromisable gksus ls jkthukek is’k djus dh
Loh–fr dh xbZA i{kdkjku }kjk jkthukek U/s 498A o 406 IPC la;qDr
:i ls is’k fd;kA jkthukek i{kdkjku dks i+dj lquk;k o lek;k
x;kA i{kdkjku us jkthukek i+dj] lquledj leLr bckjr lgh
gksuk o jkthukek fcuk fdlh ncko ds vkilh lgefr ls gksuk tkfgj
fd;kA i{kdkj izkfFkZ;k r: dh igpku Ad. jkt dey xkSM+ o vfHk-
lqfur dh igpku Ad. fgrs”k JhokLro }kjk nh xbZA jkthukek vUrxZr
/kkjk 406 IPC i`Fkd ls iq’r ij rLnhd fd;k x;kA jkthukek ‘kkfey
ik- jgsA jkthukek U/s 498A IPC, Non compromisable gksus ls
vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gS o U/s 406 IPC esa Compromisable with the
permission of Court gksus ls rLnhd fd;k tkrk gSA vfHk- lqfur dks
U/s 406 IPC ds vkjksi ls nks”keqDr ?kksf”kr fd;k tkrk gSA jkthukek
‘kkfey ik- jgsA ik- okLrs cgl Charge fu;r is’kh 11-03-19 dks is’k
gksA
gLrk-”

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1776/2019]

Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have jointly

submitted that they shall remain bound by compromise Annexure-

2 affected between the parties.

Taru Saxena, respondent no.2 has submitted that out of

Rs.22,50,000/-, agreed to be paid by petitioner, amount of

Rs.12,50,000/- shall be paid to her and remaining amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in FDR on the name of daughter Mansi

Saxena till she attains the age of majority. She further stated that

parties have filed a divorce petition under Section 13B of Hindu

Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent

in Family Court No.1, Jaipur.

Taru Saxena, 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)

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