SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vikram Ahuja vs State And Anr on 23 August, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3079/2017

Vikram Ahuja S/o Shri Sudarsh Ahuja , By Caste Arora,
R/o Malout Punjabat Present House No. 405, First Floor
Sec. 4 Panch Kula Haryana

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan

2. Sonal D/o Shri Jagdish Rai Jasuja , B/c Arora, R/o
13-B- Block Sriganganagar.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr Umesh Shrimali
Mr Vikram Ahuja – Petitioner
Mr Vishal Ahuja -Petitioner’s
brother
For Respondent(s) : Mr V.S.Rajpurohit – PP
Ms Sonal, respondent No.2
present in person

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

23/08/2018

This criminal misc. petition under section 482

CrPC is filed being aggrieved with the order dated

24.08.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1,

Sriganganagar (for short ‘the revisional court’

hereinafter), whereby it has dismissed the Revision

Petition No.53/2017 filed by the petitioner.

The said revision petition was filed by the

petitioner against the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar (for short ‘the

trial court’ hereinafter), whereby it has ordered for
(2 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

framing of charge against the petitioner for the offences

punishable under sections 498A and 406 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2

filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Sriganganagar against the petitioner and three other

persons for the offences punishable under sections 498A,

406 and 323 IPC, whereby the said complaint was

forwarded to the Police Station, Mahila, Sriganganagar and

on the basis of said complaint, FIR No.131/2013 was

registered against the petitioner and three other persons

named in the complaint for the offences punishable under

sections 406, 498A and 323 IPC.

In the complaint, the respondent No.2 has

alleged that her marriage with the petitioner was

solemnized on 29.11.2008 at Sriganganagar, where her

parents gave ornaments and other articles to her in-laws

as per their demand. It is further alleged that after her

marriage with the petitioner both of them started living at

Panch Kula, Haryana, where she was harassed and

insulted on account of demand of dowry by petitioner and

other persons named in the FIR. Allegations regarding ill-

treatment given to respondent No.2 during her illness as

well as of forcing her to get her pregnancy terminated

have also been levelled.

Police after thorough investigation have filed

charge-sheet against the petitioner alone for the offence

punishable under sections 498A and 406 IPC. The police

have also concluded that there is no involvement of other
(3 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

persons viz. mother, elder brother and wife of the elder

brother of the petitioner in commission of any crime.

The trial court took cognizance against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 498A

and 406 IPC vide order dated 16.01.2017 and

simultaneously also rejected the application preferred on

behalf of the respondent No.2 under section 190 CrPC with

a prayer for taking cognizance against the petitioner’s

mother, brother and brother’s wife. Thereafter, the trial

court has framed charges against the petitioner for the

offences punishable under sections 498A and 406 IPC vide

order dated 28.01.2017 against which the petitioner

preferred a revision petition before the revisional court,

however, the same has been dismissed.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the

petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition

seeking following reliefs:

“It is therefore most respectfully
prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed
and the impugned orders dated 28.01.2017
passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate,
Sriganganagar and dated 24.08.2017 passed by
learned Addl. Session Judge no.1, Sriganganagar
May kindly ordered to be quashed and set aside.
The criminal proceedings so initiated against the
petitioner may kindly be quashed.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble
Court deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed
in favour of the petitioner.”

Before taking into consideration the challenge

of the petitioner to the impugned orders, I would like to
(4 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

note some facts in brief, which will demonstrate as to how

a litigant can attempt to abuse the process of court with

audacity. It is in respect of respondent No.2 in particular.

This criminal misc. petition was filed on

07.09.2017 and the Registry fixed the date for listing it in

Court on 15.09.2017. On 15.09.2017, respondent No.2

was present in person, she asked for a copy of this

petition and this Court ordered for giving a copy of the

petition to her and the matter was ordered to be listed on

13.10.2017. On 13.102.2017, the petition was dismissed

in default for want of appearance on behalf of the

petitioner. On 13.11.2017, this misc. petition was restored

on an application preferred on behalf of the petitioner in

the presence of respondent No.2 and it was listed on

19.12.2017, however, the same was adjourned for

20.12.2017. On 20.12.2017, counsel for the petitioner

prayed that the Court may intervene in the matter for

resolving all disputes between the parties. Respondent

No.2, who was present in person, did not object to the

said submission and, therefore, the Court directed the

petitioner to remain present in the Court on the next date

so as to explore the possibility of amicable settlement and

fixed the matter to be listed on 04.01.2018. On

04.01.2018, in the presence of the parties, the following

order was passed:

“04@01@2018

i{kdkjku bl U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns”k
fnukad 20-12-2017 ds vuqlj.k esa vkt U;k;ky; esa
mifLFkr gSA v;kph ds u pkgus ds ckotwn ;kph us mls ,oa
(5 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

mlds iq dks ,deq”r fuoZgu HkRrk nsus dk izLrko j[kkA
ijUrq] v;kph fdlh Hkh lwjr esa jkthukek djus dk rS;kj
ugha gS ,o bl ckr ij n` gS fd tc rd fookg foPNsn
dh fMØh ikfjr ugha gksrh og fdlh izdkj dh e/;LFkrk
Lohdkj ugha djsxhA
mijksDr rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq,] bl U;k;ky; dh jk;
esa i{kdkjku ds e/; jkthukek gksus dh lEHkkouk ugha gSA
vr% ;g fofo/k ;kfpdk xzg.kkFkZ lquokbZ gsrq rkjh[k 18-01-
2018 dks lwphc) gksA ;kph ds vf/koDrk leLr nLrkostkr
jsdMZ ij izLrqr djsA”

From the above order, it is clear that the

respondent No.2 was not ready for compromise till the

decree of divorce is passed on a divorce petition filed by

her. The matter was then fixed on 18.01.2018. However, a

day prior to listing of the matter i.e. on 17.01.2018,

respondent No.2 moved an application before this Court,

which is quoted verbatim hereunder:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017
(WITH STAY APLICATION NO.3076/2017)
Date of Hearing 18.01.2018
APPLR.74/18

Vikram Ahuja V/S State Anr.

APPLICATION
To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION
HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT
JODHPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

Humble Applicant/Respondent No.2 begs to submit that
on 20.12.2017 the learned counsel for the petitioner had
prayed that the court may intervene in the matter for resolving
all the disputes between the parties but on the next fate of
hearing i.e. 04.01.18 the dispute couldn’t be resolved. The
applicant/Respondent No.2 has already filed divorce petition
u/s 13(1) HMA and the petitioner has also filed counter claim of
divorce at family court sri ganganagar. On conversion of the
case U/s 13(A) HMA to case U/s 13(B) HMA with mututal
consent the Applicant/Respondent No.2 has apprehension
keeping in mind the past cruel conduct of the petitioner, that
the petitioner may withdraw his consent for divorce. In such
circumstances the Applicant/Respondent No.2 will be no where
and will have irrepairable loss.

(6 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

According to Applicant/Respondent No.2 only obtaining
the decree of divorce will not resolve all the disputes between
the parties. The conditions of Applicant/Respondent No.2 for
compromise are as under:-

1. That the minor son of the Applicant/Respondent No.2 has
threat to life from the petitioner and his family. In case
the petitioner Vikram Ahuja withdraws the case No.
37/2017 at Family Court, Sri Ganganagar U/s 25
Guardian and Wards Act read with section 6 Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act and submits the court
order to this Hon’ble Court and also accepts that he will
have no right to the custody, guardianship, visitation
rights and any other right with respect to the minor child
Shivansh and the sole custody and guardianship of the
minor child Shivansh shall vest in the applicant Sonal and
the petitioner will not do any other claims over the minor
child under any circumstances.

2. That in case the petitioner Vikram Ahuja and his brother
Vishal withdraw all false criminal and civil cases and
agree not to file protest petition in case F.R. is produced
in F.I.R filed by the brother of the petitioner against the
applicant and her family members and submits the court
orders to this Hon’ble court and also ensures the Hon’ble
court that no other cases/F.I.R have been filed by the
petitioner and his family members and also agrees that
he and his family will not file any litigation, any complaint
or any other application before any authority/court/forum
in this regard in future on the Applicant/Respondent No.2
and her family members.

3. That in case after the completion of conditions in above
mentioned paragraph no.1 and 2, the petitioner and
Applicant/ Respondent no.2 gets decree of divorce with
mutual consent after getting the cooling period of 6
months waived off and submits the decree of divorce to
this Hon’ble Court.

In case all the above 3 conditions are fulfiled then the
Applicant/Respondent No.2 will not demand maintainance for
herself and her son.

Date 16.01.2018

Applicant/Respondent No.2″

On 18.01.2018, a copy of the above referred

application was provided to the counsel for the petitioner,

he prayed for some time to take instructions and the

matter was fixed to be listed on 15.02.2018. On
(7 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

15.02.2018, the respondent No.2 again moved a revised

application, which is reproduced as under:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017
(WITH STAY APPLICATION NO.3076/2017)

Date of Hearing 15.02.2018

Vikram Ahuja V/S State Anr.

REVISED APPLICATION

APPLR.177/18

To,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION HON’BLE
JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

Humble applicant/Respondent No.2 begs to submit that
the applicant had submitted an application in the Hon’ble High
Court dt. 16.01.2018. The revised application in the same
context on conditions of compromise is as under :-

1. Custody/Guardianship/VisitationRights :

i) That the minor son Shivansh of the Applicant/Respondent
No.2 has threat to life from the petitioner and his
family. The minor son Shivansh has been in the custody
and guardianship of the Applicant/Respondent No.2 since
his birth in 2010 while the Present Petitioner has abused
and neglected the minor son.

ii) That the Hon’ble High Court is requested to grant the
permanent sole custody guardianship to the
Applicant/Respondent No.2 Sonal

iii) That the present petitioner leaves the visitation rights
and any other right with respect to the minor child
Shivansh and will not do any claims over the minor child
Shivansh under any circumstances.

2. Cases:

i. FIR filed through relative of present petitioner at
Sriganganagar

That the present petitioner made his relative (elder
brother) file FIR no.393/17, Sadar Thana,
Sriganganagar on applicant/ Respondent no.2 and her
parents.

(8 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

Vishal Ahuja vs. Sonal Jasuja and other U/s 384, 417,
420, 467, 471, 120-B in November, 2017. The FIR was
filed with an ill intention to get the Applicant/Respondent
no.2 and her senior citizen parents arrested and
imprisoned leaving the minor son behind but the police
upon investigation found the allegations to be false and
submitted FR in the ACJM-1 Court, Sriganganagar.

ii. Complaint filed through relative of present petitioner at
Punjab

That the present petitioner has made his relative (elder
brother) file complaint at Malout (Punjab) Complaint No.
82/17 Vishal Kumar vs. Sonal Ahuja U/s 177, 181,
182, 465, 467, 468, 471, 499, 500 IPC at the Court
of Ld. Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout in which
next date of hearing is 21.02.2018.

iii. Complaint by present petitioner at CJM Court,
Sriganganagar

That the present petitioner has filed a false complaint
(complaint No.218/17) in CJM Court, Sriganganagar
Vikram Ahuja vs. Sonal U/s 189, 506 IPC.

It cannot be denied that the present petitioner may
harass the Applicant/Respondent No.2 and her family
even after the compromise by continuing with the
criminal cases and FIR’s that are not in the knowledge of
Applicant/Respondent no.2 and also by filing new one’s
through his friends and relative so the Hon’ble High
Court is requested to bound the present petitioner to
withdraw /compromise and make his relatives and friends
also withdraw /compromise in all the
cases/complaints/FIR’s against the Applicant/Respondent
No.2 and her family members and submits the court
orders to the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court
is also requested to bound the present petitioner so as
to not to make his elder brother proceed in filling
protest petition in FR at ACJM-1 Court, Sriganganagar
and also bound the present petitioner that he will neither
himself file nor file through his relatives and friends new
litigation, cases, FIR’s before any authority/court/forum
in this regard in future on applicant/Respondent No.2 and
her family members.

3. Divorce:

i. That according to the order sheet of the Hon’ble High
Court dated 04.01.2018 (attachment-1) there was no
possibility of compromise but the present petitioner gave
a false statement in the Family Court, Sriganganagar
stating that the Applicant/Respondent No.2 had given
assurance of doing compromise and filing application U/s
13-B HMA in the lower Court which is clear from order
sheet dt. 08.01.2018 (attachment-2) thus, the present
petitioner is not even being true to the Hon’ble Courts,
so he is not trustable to cooperate in the grant of decree
of divorce.

(9 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

ii. That the Applicant/Respondent no.2 had filed divorce
petition U/s 13(1) HMA at Family Court, Sriganganagar in
2015. The present petitioner had filed counter claim of
divorce. Later the Applicant/Respondent no.2 had filed an
application on 02.12.2016 requesting the Family Court,
Sriganganagar to grant divorce as both the parties had
asked for divorce. The Family Court, Sriganganagar
dismissed the said application vide order dt. 10.01.2017.
The present petitioner filed another application on
08.01.2018 stating “mijksDr izdj.k esa i{kdkjku dks fookg
foPNsn dh fMdzh ikfjr dh tkos” i.e., in case of contested
divorce CM 610/2015 but according to the order sheet
dated 08.01.2018 (attachment-3) of the Family
Court, Sriganganagar, the present petitioner mentioned
that he is ready for mutual consent divorce for which he
has given the above mentioned application U/s 151
C.P.C thus, the present petitioner is not trustable.
Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court is requested to waive
off cooling period and grant the decree of divorce.

In case all the above conditions are fulfilled then the
Applicant/ Respondent No.2 will not demand
maintenance for herself and her minor son. In case the
conditions are not fulfilled then there will not be
possibility of compromise between the parties.
Considering the request of the present petitioner for
resolving all the disputes between the parties and the
conditions mentioned above, the Hon’ble High Court is
requested to grant divorce to the parties, sole custody
and guardianship of the minor child Shivansh to the
Applicant/ Respondent No.2 Sonal, no visitation rights
and any other right with respect to minor child Shivansh
to the present petitioner and bound the present
petitioner from doing any claims over the minor child
Shivansh under any circumstances, bound the present
petitioner to himself withdraw/compromise and also get
cases, FIR’s withdrawn/ compromised by his
relatives/friends and also bound not to file and not to
make his relatives and friends file new cases and FIR’s on
Applicant/Respondent no.2 and her family members.
The Applicant/Respondent no.2 will be greatly obliged.

Attachments

1. Web copy of order dt. 04.01.2018 of the Hon’ble High
Court

2. Certified copy of Order Sheet of Family Court,
Sriganganagar dt. 08.01.2018.

3. Certified copy of application of present petitioner dt.

08.01.2018.

Date: 14.02.2018
Humble Applicant/Respondent no.2
Sd/-

Sonal”

(10 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

On 15.02.2018, counsel for the petitioner

prayed for some time and the matter was fixed for

15.03.2018, however, on 14.03.2018, the respondent

No.2 moved an application requesting to direct the

petitioner to submit the condition of compromise in

writing. The application dated 14.03.2018 is reproduced

hereunder:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. CRL. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017
(With Stay Application No.3076/2017)

Date of Hearing 15.03.2018

Vikram V/S State Anr.

Application for request for taking conditions
of compromise in writing
APPLR.252/18
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his other companion
Judges of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS ;

Humble Applicant/Respondent No.2 begs to submit
that:-

1. That on 15th Feb. 2018 the present petitioner had
proposed to file reply to the interlocutory application
submitted by the respondent no.2.

2. That the humble applicant/respondents no.2 had given
consolidated conditions of compromise in writing to the
Hon’ble High Court on 15.02.2018 for which the present
petitioner had prayed for time.

It is a humble request to the Hon’ble High court to
take the conditions of compromise of the present
petitioner in writing only as the respondent no.2 does
not have faith on the present petitioner. The respondent
no.2 shall be greatly obliged.

Date: 14.03.2018
Humble Applicant/Respondent No.2

Sd/-

(SONAL)”

(11 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

On 15.03.2018, the matter was ordered to be

listed on 09.04.2018. On 09.04.2018, after hearing

counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2, this Court

stayed the proceedings pending against the petitioner in

Criminal Case No.12/2017 before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Sriganganagar and fixed the matter to be listed

on 09.05.2018.

However, on 09.04.2018 itself, t he respondent

No.2 filed another application, which is reproduced

hereunder:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

APPLR.316/18

S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017
(With Stay APLICATION NO.3076/2017)
Date of Hearing 09.04.2018

Vikram V/S State Anr.

Application for request for taking conditions
of compromise Date wise action plan from the
Present Petitioner

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his other companion
Judges of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS ;

Humble Applicant/Respondent no.2 begs to
submit that:-

1. That a request for resolving all the disputes
between the parties was made on behalf of the
Present Petitioner on 20.12.2017.

2. That the Present Petitioner has not filed his
conditions of compromise and a detailed action
plan as to how the dispute can be resolved in the
Hon’ble High Court uptill now.

3. That the Respondent No.2 has the following cases
in her knowledge that have been filed by the
Present Petitioner the false cases that Present
(12 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

Petitioner has made his brother Vishal Ahuja
file on Respondent no.2 even her parents –

Filing U/s Title Court
1. complaint 177, 181, Vishal Court of Ld. Sub divisional
no.82/17 182, 465, Ahuja Judicial Magistrate Malout
467, 468, Vs. (Punjab)
471, 499, Sonal
500 IPC Ahuja
2. FIR No. 384, 417, Vishal ACJM-1 Court Sriganganagar
393/17 Sadar 420, 467, Ahuja
Thana 468, 471, Vs.
Sriganganaga 120 B IPC Sonal
r, Case No. Jasuja
27/18, FR no.
81/18 Other
s

3. Complaint 189, 506 IPC Vikra CJm Court Sriganganagar
No.218/17 m
Ahuja
Vs.

Sonal
4. CM 37/17 25 Guardian Vikra Family Court Sriganganagar
Wards act m
read with Ahuja
section 6 Vs.
Hindu Sonal
Minority
Guardianship
Act
5. CM 610/15 Counter Sonal Family Court Sriganganagar
Claim of vs.
divorce U/s Vikra
13(1) HMA m
Ahuja

4. That it is requested that the Present Petitioner be
directed to first of all inform the Hon’ble Court about
his date-wise action plan about surrendering sole
custody, guardianship and visitation rights of minor
child Shivansh, any other rights and claims with
respect to minor child Shivansh under all
circumstances.

5. That the complaint no. 82/17 at Ld. sub divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Malout (Punjab) is out of
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court so an action plan of
the Present Petitioner for getting the complaint
withdrawn from his brother Vishal Ahuja and filing
the certified copy of the court order to this Hon’ble
Court is to be mentioned by the Present Petitioner
further affidavit from the brother of the Present
Petitioner Vishal Ahuja is required regarding
mentioning his action plan of
compromising/withdrawing/getting quashed all
(13 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

cases/complaints/FIRs against the Respondent no.2
her family members a commitment about not
filing any cases/ complaints/ FIRs on Respondent
No.2 and her family members in future.

6. That it is humble request that the Present Petitioner
be directed to give an affidavit to this Hon’ble Court
about the complete list of cases, complaints FiRs
filed by the Present Petitioner, his relatives
friends on the Respondent No.2 her family
Members and detailed date wise action plan to
withdraw/compromise/get/ FIRs quashed. The
Present Petitioner also needs to disclose his steps
about his commitment for not filing not making
his relative friends file any new
cases/complaints/FIRs against the Respondent No.2
her family members.

7. That after the action plan of Custody, Guardianship,
Visitation Rights etc. issues and after the action plan
for withdrawal of cases, FIRs and complaints against
the Respondent No.2 her family members, finally
action plan to cooperate for divorce without cooling
period is to be disclosed the date of submitting
the decree of Divorce to this Hon’ble Court is to be
mentioned.

It is humble request in the interest of justice to the
Hon’ble High Court to keep the criminal misc. petition
pending and take the date-wise action plan for
compromising form the Present Petitioner in writing in the
absence of which any compromise is not possible. It is
also requested that the next date of hearing be given
after a month as the Respondent No.2 needs to come
along with her father/mother from Sriganganagar, the
remote corner of Rajasthan. Respondent No.2 shall be
greatly obliged.

Attachment :

1. Certified Copy of Final Report in false FIR lodged by
the brother of the Present Petitioner.

Date: 9.04.2018

HUMBLE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT NO.2
Sd/-

(SONAL)”

Pursuant to the order dated 09.04.2018, the

matter was listed on 09.05.2018 and on that date,

respondent No.2 filed her written arguments in detail.

However, the case was adjourned for 09.07.2018.

(14 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

In the meantime, the Family Court,

Sriganganagar granted decree of divorce to the

respondent No.2 vide judgment dated 21.04.2018.

Thereafter on 12.06.2018, the petitioner filed reply to the

application and revised application filed by respondent

No.2. The same is quoted as under:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.3079/17

PETITIONER RESPONDENT

Vikram Ahuja v/s State of Rajasthan anr

Reply to the application/consent for conditions
mentioned in application of respondent no.2
(complainant) revised application

TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS OTHER
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS;

On behalf of humble petitioner it is most respectfully
submitted as under:-

1. That the petitioner is ready to fulfill the first condition,
and ready to withdraw the case no.37/2017 at Family
Court Sriganganagar u/s 25 Guardian Wards Act r/w s.
6 Hindu minority and Guardianship Act and ready to
submit the court’s order and also accepts that the
petitioner will have no right to the custody,
Guardianships, Visitation right and any other right with
respect to his minor child Shivansh sole custody and
guardianship of minor Shivansh shall vest in the
respondent no.2 Sonal petitioner will not do any other
claim over the minor child under any circumstances
petitioner also want to assure that there was no former
threat to life to respondent no.2 minor Son from
petitioner and his family.

2. That the petitioner is ready to fulfill the second condition
mentioned in the application ready that the petitioner
Vikram Ahuja and his brother Vishal Ahuja will withdraw
all criminal civil cases and agree that they will not file
(15 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

protest petition in case F.R.is produced in F.I.R filed by
the brother of the petitioner against the applicant
respondent no.2 and her family members and submit the
court’s order to this Hon’ble court and also ensures that
no other cases/FIR have been filed by the petitioner and
his family members and also agree that the petitioner
and his family will not file any litigation, any complaint or
any other application before any authority/court/forum in
this regard in future on the Applicant/Respondent no.2
and her family members. the petitioner further want to
assure that no false case was previously filed and in
future will not be filed.

3. That the petitioner is already consented to complete the
conditions mention in the paragraph no.1 2 of the
application of the respondent no.2 and he was ready to
get divorce with mutual consent and he was ready to
submit the decree of divorce to this Hon’ble court, but in
the change in circumstances it is noteworthy to mention
here that learned Family court Sriganganagar has already
passed the decree of Divorce while allowing the
application of the respondent Sonal the petitioner
undertakes that he will not challenge it further if the all
disputes cases settled mutually.

REPLY TO THE REVISED APPLICATION

Humble petitioner respectfully submits paragraph wise
reply to the revised application as under:

1.(i) That since the all matters are going to be amicably settled
between the petitioner and respondent no.2, the
petitioner his family himself do not want to create any
controversy regarding truthfulness of any former fact
do not want to comment anything which can unpleasant
to the respondent no.2.

(ii) That since the all matters are going to be amicably settled
between the petitioner and respondent no.2, the
petitioner is ready to fulfill first condition and agrees in
case Hon’ble court grants permanent sole custody
guardianship of his minor son Shivansh to the
applicant/Respondent no.2 sonal.

(iii) That since the all matters are going to be amicably settled
between the petitioner and respondent no.2, the present
petitioner ready to leave the visitation rights and any
other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh and
will not do any claim over the minor child Shivansh under
any circumstances.

(16 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

2. That since the all matters are going to be amicably
settled between the petitioner and respondent no.2, all
the cases mentioned in sub-para (i),(ii),(iii) will be
withdrawn/compromised ensure that the elder brother
of the petitioner will not proceed in filling protest.

3. That since the all matters are going to be amicably
settled between the petitioner and respondent no.2
without going in to the dispute regarding truthfulness of
the former facts, it is noteworthy to mention here that
learned Family court Sriganganagar has already passed
the decree of Divorce while allowing the application of the
respondent Sonal the petitioner undertakes that he will
not challenge it further if the all disputes cases settled
mutually.

Since sub-para is repetition of the conditions mentioned in
application as well as revised application filed by the
respondent no.2, without averting anything new petitioner
his family including his brother, is ready to settle amicably all
the matters and ready and willing to fulfill all the condition
mentioned in application and revised application.

Sd-

Humble petitioner”

Thereafter on 03.07.2018, the respondent No.2

filed written arguments, wherein it is asserted that she is

ready to compromise the matter on certain conditions. The

written arguments filed by respondent No.2 are

reproduced hereunder:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017
(With Stay APLICATION NO.3076/2017)
Date of Hearing 09.07.2018

Vikram Ahuja V/S State Anr.

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT NO.2 ON REPLY
TO APLLICATION OF PRESENT PETITIONER
DT.12.06.2018

To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS
COMPANION HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN
HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR.

(17 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

Humble Respondent No.2 begs to submit as under :-

1. That the Present Petitioner has filed reply to the
application of respondent No.2 on conditions of
compromise and her revised application but he has not
filed any reply to the application of respondent No.2
(APPLR No.316/2018) for mentioning date wise action
plan for compromise which depicts that the Present
Petitioner does not have intention of practically fulfilling
the conditions of compromise.

2. That the promises made by the Present Petitioner in his
reply dated 12.06.2018 are merely promises looking at
the past conduct of the Present Petitioner. The promises
are not acceptable and the respondent No.2 is not ready
for any compromise on the basis of mere promises.

3. That for arriving at a compromise the Present Petitioner
needs to withdraw the custody case No.37/2017 at family
court, Sriganganagar and submit the certified copy of
court order to this Hon’ble Court and also needs to file
an affidavit to this Hon’ble Court stating that the present
petitioner and his family members will have no right to
the custody, guardianship and visitation rights any
other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh and
the permanent sole custody and guardianship of the
minor child Shivansh shall vest in the Respondent No.2
Sonal. The petitioner his family will not do any other
claims/demand over the minor child under any
circumstances in future also.

4. That the Present Petitioner himself and his brother Vishal
Ahuja need to withdraw all the criminal and civil cases,
complaints FIR filed against the Respondent No. 2 nd her
family members and submit the certified copies of
such Court orders to this Hon’ble Court. They need to
withdraw the following Cases, Complaints-

Filings                Title                Court          Next    Date      of
Hearing
Complaint Vikram Ahuja vs. CJM Court, 07.07.2018
No.218/2017 Sonal Sriganganagar
Divorce appeal Till 21.07.2018
period
Complaint Vishal Kumar vs. Ld. Sub. Divisional 23.07.2018
no.82/2017 Sonal Ahuja Judicial Magistrate,
Malout Punjab
CM 37/17 Vikarm Ahuja vs. Family Court, 26.07.2018
Sonal Sriganganagar

F.R. No.81/2018 in Vishal Ahuja vs. ACJM 1 Court, 03.08.2018
Case no. 27/2018 Sonal jasuja and Sriganganagar
(FIR No.393/2017 others
Sadar Thana,
Sriganganagar)
Any other cases by
(18 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

the Present
Petitioner and his
Family Members on
the respondent No.2
and her family
members

5. That the Present Petitioner needs to file an affidavit
himself and also get an affidavit filed from his
brother Vishal Ahuja stating that they have
withdrawn all the cases against the respondent No.2 and
her family members and No other cases, FIR, Coplaints
have been filed by the Present Petitioner and his family
members on Respondent No.2 and her family members
and The Present Petitioner and his family members will
not file new litigation, complaint or any other application
before any authority/ Court/ Forum in this regard in
future on the Respondent No. 2 and her family members.
The brother of Present Petitioner also needs to mention in
the affidavit that he will not file Protest Petition in FR
No.81/18, case No. 27/18 (FIR No. 393/17) at ACJM-1,
Court Sriganganagar. The certified copy of ordersheet of
ACJM-1, Sriganganagar mentioning that Shri Vishal Ahuja
will file Protest Petition on 03-08-2018 is
Attachment-1.

6. That the Present Petitioner needs to submit an affidavit to
this Hon'ble Court stating that the Present Petitioner will
not challenge/file appeal against the decree of divorce
granted by the family court Sriganganagar.

7. That the compromise will be done in writing after
execution of all the terms of compromise and not just on
the basis of promises.

8. That in the absence of fulfillments of all the conditions of
compromise of the respondent No.2, the harrassed
respondent No.2 is not ready for any compromise.

9. That since the Present Petitioner is not practically
withdrawing the cases etc. the possibility of the Present
Petitioner having malified intensions and getting the FIR
under Section 498A, 406 IPC Quashed in the name of
Compromise cannot be denied.

It is a Humble request that if the Present Petitioner
and his brother do not actually fulfill all the conditions of
compromise then there is no scope for compromise. Mere
commitments and filing of affidavit by the Present
Petitioner with commitments on behalf of his brother
does not lead to any compromise. It is to be noted that
the Present Petitioner himself has not given affidavit of
withdrawing cases filed by himself instead he has given
affidavit in reference to the cases filed by the brother. It
shows that the Present Petitioner has not come with
clean hand. It is thus clear that in such conditions
compromise is not possible. If the Present Petitioner
does not really fulfill the conditions of compromise the
(19 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

respondent No.2 is not ready for compromise. In that
condition it is a humble request that written arguments of
Respondent No.2 (Inward No.5734/18), documents
(Inward No.14500/17), certified copies (Inward
No.5720/18) along with citations (Attachment No.3, 4,
5 6) wedding card (Attachment No.2) justifying the
jurisdiction of the court at Sriganganagar be taken into
consideration the present CrLMP No. 3079/17 filed by
the Present Petitioner kindly be dismissed and the trial
court(CJM Court Sriganganagar) be directed to do speedy
trial and impart justice to the harrased Respondent No.2
who had filed the case u/s 498A, 406 IPC more than 5
years ago.

Date-02.07.2018

Humble Applicant/Respondent No.2
Sd/-

(Sonal)
R/o 13-B Block
Sriganganagar
Attachments-

1. Certified copy of order sheet dt.18.05.2018 of ACJM-

Court

2. Wedding Card

3. Citation Bharat Kale and Anr. vs. State of AP (Appeal)
Criminal 1251 to 2003 of Supreme Court of India)

4. Citation Vanka Radhamanohari (Smt.) Vs. Vanka
Venkate Reddy Ors. On 20.04.1993.

5. Citation Sunita Kumari Kashyap vs. State of Bihar and
Anr. (Crl Appeal No.917/2011 of Supreme Court of
India).

6. Citation Harikesh Dhanak and Anr. vs. state of
Rajasthan and Anr."

On 09.07.2018, when the matter was listed

before the Court, the following order was passed:

"09/07/2018
The respondent No.2, present in person before
this Court has submitted reply to the application
dated 12.6.2018 filed on behalf of the petitioner in
this criminal misc. petition.

The petitioner along with his brother Mr.Vishal
Ahuja present in person before this Court undertake
that the cases instituted against the respondent No.2
and her family members on behalf of the petitioner,
(20 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

his brother and their any other relative either in the
State of Rajasthan or in the State of Punjab will be
withdrawn by the next date of hearing.

Taking into consideration, the undertaking
given by the petitioner and his brother Mr.Vishal
Ahuja, this Court deems it appropriate to list this
matter on 9th August, 2018.

On that day, the petitioner and his brother
Mr.Vishal Ahuja may appear in person before this
Court and produce certified copy of the orders
withdrawing Complaint No.82/2017 pending in the
court of CJM, Malout, Punjab; the application
No.37/2017 pending in the Family Court, Sri
Ganganagar; order of withdrawal of Protest Petition
preferred by them being aggrieved with the FR
No.81/2018, arising out of FIR No.393/2017 of Police
Station Sadar Thana, Sri Ganganagar and order of
withdrawal of Complaint No.218/2017 filed by them
in the Court of CJM, Sri Ganganagar.

Let this matter be listed on 9th August, 2018.
Interim order, if any, to continue till the next
date."

Again on 09.07.2018, the respondent No.2 filed

written arguments in continuation of earlier written

arguments, which are reproduced verbatim hereunder:

"WRITTEN ARGUMENTS IN CONTINUATION TO
THE ONES SUBMITTED ON REPLY TO
APPLICATION OF PRESENT PETITIONER
DT.12.06.2018

To,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION
HON'BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH
COURT AT JODHPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

Humble Respondent No.2 in continuation to her written
arguments filed on 02.07.2018 submits as under-

(21 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

1. That for arriving at a compromise the Present Petitioner
needs to withdraw the custody case No.37/2017 at family
court, Sriganganagar and submit the certified copy
of court order to this Hon'ble Court and also needs to file
an affidavit to this Hon'ble Court stating that the present
petitioner and his family members will have no right to
the custody, guardianship and visitation rights any
other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh and
the permanent sole custody and guardianship of the
minor chold Shivansh shall vest in the Respondent No.2
Sonal. The petitioner his family will not do any other
claims / demand over the minor child under any
circumstances in future also. That the present petitioner
on 12.06.2018 has mentioned in last line of para 1 of
his reply to the application that there was no former
threat to life of Respondent No.2 and minor son from the
petitioner and his family members. The respondent no.2
wants to clarify that the Respondent No.2 has mentioned
the facts of immense cruelty on her and her minor child
Shivansh in FIR No.131/2013, Mahila Thana
Sriganganagar and has stated about the attempts of
abortion and murder on the Respondent No.2 and her
minor child Shivansh by the present petitioner and his
family members. The police upon thorough investigation
of the said FIR filed challan against the present petitioner
in the Hon'ble CJM Court Sriganganagar. The CJM Court
Sriganganagar to cognizance against the
presentpetitioner and framed charges against him. The
respondent no.2 filed divorce petition U/s 13(1) HMA on
the grounds of cruelty and desertion in the family court
Sriganganagar. The Court granted divorce allowing the
application of Respondent No.2 Sonal.

2. That the present Petitioner himself and his brother Vishal
Ahuja need to withdraw all the criminal and civil cases,
complaints, FIR filed against the Respondent No.2 and
her family members and submit the certified copies of
such Court orders to this Hon'ble Court. They need to
withdraw the following Cases, Complaints on following
dates-

Withdraws Vishal Kumar vs. Sonal Ld.Sub.divisional 23.07.2018
complaint Ahuja Judicial Magistrate,
no.82/2017 Malout Punjab
Withdraw CM Vikaram Ahuja vs. Sonal Family Court 26.07.2018
37/2017 and Sriganganagar
submits court
orders and
affidavit to
this Hon'ble
court on next
date of
hearing

Accepts F.R. Vishal Ahuja vs. Sonal ACJM 1 Court 03.08.2018
No.81/2018 in Jasuja and others Sriganganagar
case
no.27/2018
(FIR
No.393/17
(22 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

Sadar Thana,
Sriganganagar
Withdraws Vikram Ahuja vs. Sonal CJM Court 26.09.2018
complaint Sriganganagar
no.218/2017
Does not on next date of
challenge/ file hearing at Hon'ble
appeal again High Court
decree of
divorce
give the
affidavit
Withdraws Files Certified copy
any other of Court Orders
cases by the and affidavits On
Present next Date of
petitioner and hearing at High
his Family Court
Members on
the respondent
No.2 and her
family
members
Withdraws all On next Date of
complaints, hearing at High
FIR by self Court
and bother
and submit
certified copy
of court orders
and affidavits

That the Present Petitioner needs to file an
affidavit himself and also get an affidavit filed from his
brother Vishal Ahuja stating that they have
withdrawn all the cases against the respondent
No.2 and her family members and no other cases,
FIR complaints have been filed by the Present
Petitioner and his family members on Respondent No.2
and her family members and if filed the
certified copies after withdrawal/Compromise are
submitted to this Hon'ble Court. The Present Petitioner
and his family members has not filed new
litigation, complaint or any other application before any
authority/Court/Forum in this regard in future on the
Respondent No.2 and her family members. The brother
of Present Petitioner also needs to mention in the
affidavit that he will not file Protest Petition in FR No.
81/18, case No. 27/18 (FIR No. 393/17) at ACJM-1
Court Sriganganagar accepted the F.R. The certified
copy of ordersheet of ACJM-1, Sriganganagar needs to be
submitted to this Hon'ble Court.

That the present petitioner has mentioned in last line of
para 2 that no false case was previously filed and in
future will not be filed but the fact is that the present
petitioner himself filed false case and got filed false FIR
and complaint through his brother Vishal Ahuja. The
police upon investigation of FIR No. 393/2017, Sadar
(23 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

Thana Sriganganagar found the FIR to be false and had
put FR in ACJM -1 court Sriganganagar. (Certified Copy of
FR is present in court file of this Hon'ble Court. The
present petitioner has committed for not filing false
case in future but the respondent No. 2 looks for
commitment that the present petitioner and his family
members will not file any cases in future on Respondent
No.2 and her family members.

3. That the Present Petitioner needs to submit an affidavit to
this Hon'ble Court stating that the Present Petitioner has
not challenged and filed appeal against the decree of
divorce granted by the family court Sriganganagar. The
present petitioner has mentioned in the last line of para 3
that he will not challenge the decree of divorce if all
the disputes and cases settled mutually. On the
other hand the present petitioner mentiones that he was
ready to get divorce with mutual consent and he was
ready to submit the decree of divorce the this Hon'ble
court. In such circumstances he is not expected to
file an appeal against the decree of divorce specially
when the Respondent No. 2 has not demanded any
maintenance for herself and her minor child.

4. That in para 1 (ii) if the reply of revise application the
present petitioner has mentioned that the present
petitioner agrees in case Hon'ble court grants permanent
sole custody and guardianship of minor son Shivansh
to the Respondent No. 2 Sonal which means that the
present petitioner is not ready to withdraw the custody
case CM 37/2017 at Family Court Sriganganagar inspite
of the facts that the minor child Shivansh has threat to
life from the present petitioner and his family
members in order to come to a compromise the
present petitioner needs to leave the custody
guardianship and visitation rights and any other
right with respect to the minor child Shivansh. So that
permanent sole custody and guardianship of minor child
Shivansh shall vest in Respondent No. 2 Sonal with whom
child lives since his birth in 2010 after desertion of the
Respondent No. 2 by the present petitioner and the
present petitioner has not seen the minor child from
last 8 years. The present petitioner also needs to
give and affidavit statyting that he and his family
members will not do any other claims over the child
under any circumstances in future.

5. That further in para 1 (iii) the present petitioner has
mentioned that, "The present petitioner ready to leave
the visitation rights and any other right with respect to
the minor child Shivansh." The verb is is missing in the
sentence so it means that the present petitioner still not
ready to leave the visitation right and any other rights
with respect to the minor child. The present petitioner in
order to compromise needs to withdraw the custody case
CM 37/2017 at Family Court Sriganganagar and submits
certified copy of court orders of family court
Sriganganagar to this Hon'ble Court alongwith an
(24 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

affidavit mentioning the conditions in para 1 of the
present written arguments of Respondent No.2.

6. That the present petitioner has mentioned that the case
is mentioned in the sub para (i),(ii) and (iii) by the
Respondent No.2 will be withdrawn/ compromise but they
are actually not withdrawal till date and any
compromise will not only be possible after the
present petitioner himself compromise/ withdraws
the cases and complaints and also gets the cases
and complaints withdrawn from his brother. In the
absence of actual withdrawal / compromise of the
case which are filed in sections stating Non
Compoundable Offences no compromise is possible.

The present petitioner has not replied to the last
sub para of para 2 of the revised application of
Respondent No.2 in which there is mention that the
present petitioner may harass the Respondent no.2 and
her family member even after the compromise by
continuing with the criminal cases and FIRs that are not
in the knowledge of Respondent No.2 and also by filing
new case through his friends and relatives. The present
petitioner needs to withdraw and get withdrawn the cases
filed and also file an affidavit himself and get filed
affidavit from his brother stating that he and his family
members have withdrawn all cases and will not file any
cases in future on Respondent No.2 and her family
members. The present petitioner has further mentioned
in para 2 of ensuring that the elder brother of the
petitioner will not proceed in filing protest but the order
sheet dated 18.05.2018 of ACJM 1 court shows that the
present petitioner will filed protest petitioner on
03.08.2018 in case Vishal Ahuja Vs Sonal Jasuja and Ors.
U/s 384, 417, 420, 467, 471, 120-B I.P.C.

Likewise the hearing in complaint No.82/2017
Vishal Kumar Vs Sonal Ahuja U/s 177, 181, 182, 465,
467, 468, 471, 499, 500 I.P.C. at the court of Ld. Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout is 23.07.2018. No
compromise is possible when the present petitioner and
his brother continue the proceedings in the above
mentioned cases in which the alligations levied are the
same in the case at ACJM 1 court Sriganganagar in which
police has put FR No.81/2018. The present petitioner is
giving commitment and affidavit on behalf of his brother
but his commitments do not hold any good on behalf of
some one else the complainant Vishal Ahuja himself need
to withdraw / compromise in the cases filed by him. It is
to be noted that the present petitioner himself has not
made any commitment for withdrawing cases filed by him
including case No. 218/2017 at CJM Court Sriganganagar
and case No. 37/2017 at Family Court Sriganganagar and
not filing appeal against the decree of divorce. The
compromise can only be done when the present
petitioner come to this Hon'ble court after executing the
conditions of compromise with the required court orders
and affidavit. The present petitioner in last para
mentioned that the petitioner himself and his family
(25 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

including his brother is ready and willing to fulfill all the
conditions mentioned in the application and revised
application so he and his family members need to
execute all conditions of compromise practically. The
compromise can not be arrived at by mere filing of reply
to application of Respondent No.2 and by giving affidavit.
The conditions of compromise need to be actually
fulfilled, court orders after withdrawing cases to be
submitted to this Hon'ble court and filing of following
affidavits needs to be done.

The affidavit filed by present petitioner must contain

1. Affidavit in reference to leaving custody, guardianship
and visitation rights, giving sole permanent custody of
minor child Shivansh to Respondent No.2 Sonal and
doing no future claims over minor child Shivansh by the
present petitioner and his family members under any
circumstances.

2. Affidavit that he has withdrawn all civil and criminal cases
against the Respondent No.2 and her family members
and he and his family members will not filed any
litigation, FIR, case, and complaint against the
Respondent No.2 and her family members in future.

3. Affidavit that he has not filed appeal against the decree
of divorce.

The brother of present petitioner Vishal Ahuja need to file

1. Affidavit stating that he has withdrawn / compromised all
cases, complaints, FIR etc. against the respondent No.2
and her family members and he will not fill any case,
complaints, FIR in future on respondent No. 2 and her
family members.

It is the humble request that since the matrimonial
disputes have not been settled till now the FIR U/s
498(a), 406 I.P.C. not be quashed unitll the present
petitioner and his family members fulfill the conditions of
compromise, submits the certified copies of court orders
and affidavits of present petitioner and his brother to this
Hon'ble court and the compromise is done in writing for
this purpose the next date of hearing kindly be given
after 26.09.2018, the date at CJM court Sriganganagar so
that the cases are actually withdrawn and conditions of
compromise fulfilled.

Date-09-07-2018
Sd/-

Humble Applicant/
Respondent No.2"

On 11.07.2018, another application was filed by

respondent No.2, which is reproduced hereunder:

(26 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO. 3079/2017
(WITH STAY APPLICATION NO. 3076/2017)
Date of hearing 09.08.2018
Vikram Ahuja V/S State Anr.

APPLICATION
To,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION
HON'BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT
JODHPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS:

Humble Respondent No. 2 begs to submit as under:

1. That the Respondent No. 2 had submitted her conditions
of compromise vide her application dated 16-01-2018,
14-02-2018, 09-04-2018 and written arguments dated
02-07-2018 and 09-07-2018.

2. That the Hon'ble Court on 09-07-2018 directed the
present petitioner and his brother to withdraw cases
against Respondent No. 2 and her family members.

3. That the respondent no. 2 in her written arguments dated
09-07-2018 had asked for an affidavit to be filed by the
present petitioner in this Hon'ble Court stating that the
present petitioner and his family members will have no
right to the custody, guardianship and visitation rights
any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh
and the permanent sole custody and guardianship of the
minor child Shivansh shall vest in the Respondent No. 2
Sonal. The petitioner his family will not do any claim/
demand over the minor child under any circumstance in
future also.

4. That the present petitioner is required to file an affidavit
himself and also get an affidavit filed from his brother
Vishal Ahuja stating that they have withdrawn all the
cases against the Respondent No. 2 and her family
members and No other cases, FIR, complaints have been
filed by the Present Petitioner and his family members on
Respondent No. 2 and her family members and The
Present Petitioner and his family members will not file
new litigation, complaint or any other application before
any authority/Court/ Forum in this regard in future on the
Respondent No. 2 and her family members.

5. That the present petitioner need to submit an affidavit to
this Hon'ble Court stating that the Present Petitioner will
not challenge/file appeal against the decree of divorce
granted by the family court Sriganganagar on dated 21-
04-2018 in case No. CM610/15.

(27 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

6. That the present petitioner has mentioned in tokc izkFkZuk
i on 07-06-2018 in family court Sriganganagar in the
first line of second page "izkFkhZ }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp
U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ds le{k vizkFkhZ;k }kjk j[ks x;s jkthukek ds pkj izLrkoksa
dks v{kj'k% Lohdkj fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ;k dh gj "krZ ekuus dks igys
Hkh rS;kj Fkk vkSj vkt Hkh rS;kj gS " The present petitioner in his
reply to Hon'ble High Court dated 12-06-2018 has
mentioned is the last para that he is ready to settle
amicably all the matters and ready and willing to fulfill all
the condition mentioned in application and revised
application. According to the present petitioner he is
ready to fulfill the conditions of compromise but the
Hon'ble Court only directed the present petitioner to
withdraw the cases and hence all the condition of
respondent no.2 do not get fulfilled by the order dated
09-07-2018.

7. That in the case the entire matrimonial dispute is not
settled the respondent no. 2, her minor Son and her
family members will have irreparable loss.

It is a humble requested that the present petitioner
be directed to fulfill all the conditions of compromise of
respondent no. 2. In case the present does not fulfill
all the condition of compromise of respondent no.
2, the respondent No. 2 is not ready for any
compromise. In the absence of settlement of entire
matrimonial dispute the quashing of FIR under
section 498A, 406 IPC is requested not to be done
and it is requested that the written arguments of
respondent No. 2(Inward No. 5734/18),
documents (Inward No. 14500/17), Certified
copies (Inward No. 5720/18) , along with citations
and wedding card be taken into consideration and
present Crlmp No. 3079/17, kindly be dismissed
and trial court be directed to do speedy trial and
impart justice the respondent No.2.

Date: 10-07-2018
Humble Applicant/
Respondent No.2
Sd/-

(Sonal)
Attachments-

1. Certified copy of tokc izkFkZuk i
dt. 07-06-2018 of Family Court,
Shriganganagar"

Thereafter again on 23.07.2018, written

arguments were filed by the respondent No.2, which are

reproduced hereunder:

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017
(WITH STAY APLICATION NO.3076/2017)
(28 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

Date of Hearing 23.07.2018

Vikram Ahuja V/S State Ant.

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON APLLICATION DT.10.07.2018

To,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION
HON'BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT
JODHPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

Humble Respondent No.02 begs to submit the written
arguments as under :-

1. That the Hon'ble High Court had passed order dt.9/7/18
of which the Respondent No.2 got certified copy on the
next date on 10/7/18 in which the Hon'ble Court had
directed the Present Petition to withdraw the cases only
and there were no directions in reference to the
remaining conditions of compromise.

2. That to get the inclusion of directions for remaining
conditions of compromise in order of Hon'ble High Court
the Respondent No.2 immediately filed an application on
the very day on 10/7/18, gave copy to the Present
Petitioner through his learned counsel by Registered Post.
The receipt of which was filed in the Hon'ble Court.

3. That the Hon'ble High Court is requested to direct the
Present Petitioner and his brother Vishal Ahuja to comply
with all the conditions of compromise as the Present
Petitioner has given consent in the reply submitted by the
Present Petitioner on 12/6/18 in the Hon'ble High Court.

4. That the Respondent No.2 being highly educated,
financially well to do and competent has never claimed
and is not willing to take any alimony or maintenance
from the Present Petitioner for self and for her minor
child. The Respondent No.2 has mentioned about not
demanding maintenance for herself and her minor child
in her application (Reg.No.74/2018, Reg. Date
17.01.2018)

5. That the Present Petitioner has not given affidavit
regarding - I) expressing his acceptance of judgment and
decree of divorce granted by Family Court, Sri
Ganganagar on 21.4.2018 ii) surrendering custody,
guardianship and visitation rights and any other right
with respect to the minor child Sivansh and giving the
permanent sole custody and guardianship of the minor
child Shivansh to the Respondent No.2 Sonal and writing
that the Petitioner and his family members will not do
any claim/demand over the minor child under any
circumstances whatsoever it may be in future also.
Although the Present Petitioner has already given consent
in this regard for withdrawing the custody case at Family
Court, Sriganganagar and having no right to custody,
(29 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

guardianship and visitation rights and any other right
with respect to the minor child Shivansh shall vest in
respondent No.02 Sonal petitioner will not do any other
claim over the minor child under any circumstances in his
reply dated 12.06.2018 filed in this Hon'ble Court.

iii) affidavit of Present Petitioner and his brother Vishal Ahuja
stating that there are no more cases pending on
Respondent No.2 and her family members filed by the
Present Petitioner and his family members and consent
for not filing and not getting filed new cases, FIR,
complaints against the Respondent No.2 and her family
members by the Present Petitioner and his family
members. Although Consent in this regard has already
been given by the Present Petitioner in his reply
dt.12/6/2018.

6. That the Present Petitioner had filed an affidavit along
with his reply/consent for the conditions of compromise
dated 12/6/2018 but the affidavit was filed in respect to
withdrawing the cases filed by his brother. The Present
Petitioner is yet to give affidavit in support of his consent
expressed in his reply dt.12/6/2018 which is a must
condition for compromise.

7. That the dispute does not get sorted out by merely
withdrawing the cases filed by the Present Petitioner
and his brother Vishal Ahuja.

8. That in case the present petitioner does not file in this
Hon'ble Court the required certified copies of court orders
and submits his and his brothers affidavits after
completing all the conditions of the compromise of
respondent No.02, the respondent No. 02 is not ready for
any compromise.

9. That no compromise in writing has been arrived at
between the parties.

It a humble request that in the absence of
compromise between the parties the criminal proceedings
of the case against the Present Petitioner may not be
quashed in the interest of justice and the present
petitioner and his brother Vishan Ahuja be directed to
submit certified copies of court orders to this Hon'ble
Court and file the affidavits fulfilling all the conditions of
compromise of the respondent No.2. The conditions of
compromise include filing an affidavit by the present
petitioner accepting the judgment and decree of divorce,
surrendering custody, guardianship and visitation rights
and any other right with respect to the minor child
Shivansh and giving sole permanent custody and
guardianship of the minor child Shivansh to the
Respondent No.2 Sonal and stating that the petitioner
and his family members will not do any claim / demand
over the minor child under any circumstances
Whatsoever it may be. Affidavits of Present Petitioner
and his brother Vishal Ahuja stating that all cases, FIRs,
complaints have been withdrawn against the Respondent
(30 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

No.2 and her family members filed by the Present
Petitioner and his family members and no new litigation,
FIRs complaints, applications will be filed against the
Respondent No.2 and her family members by the Present
Petitioner and his family members. In case the Present
Petitioner and his brother Vishal Ahuja do not fulfill all the
conditions of compromise and the parties do not file
compromise deed in writing in this Hon'ble Court, the
Respondent No.2 is not ready for any compromise. In
the absence of settlement/ compromise of entire
matrimonial dispute the quashing of FIR u/s498a, 406
IPC is required not to be done and it is further requested
that the Present CrLMP kindly be dismissed and the trial
court be directed to do speedy trial and impart justice to
the respondent No.2.

Humble Respondent No.2
Sd/
(Sonal)
Dt.-23/7/2108"

Again on 25.07.2018, the respondent No.2 filed

an application, which is reproduced hereunder:

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017
(WITH STAY APLICATION NO.3076/2017)
Date of Hearing 09.08.2018

Vikram Ahuja V/S State Anr.

APPLICATION

To,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION
HON'BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT
JODHPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

Humble Respondent No.2 begs to submit as under :-

1. That the Respondent No. 2 had submitted her conditions
of compromise through the following:

S.No.                   Reg. No.                     Reg.Date
1. APPLR 74/2018 17/1/2018
(31 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

2. APPLR 177/2018 15/2/2018
3. APPLR 252/2018 14/3/2018
4. APPLR 316/2018 9/4/2018
5. Written Arguments 14501/2018 2/7/2018
6. Written Arguments 14502/2018 9/7/2018

2. That on 9/7/2018 the Present Petitioner and his brother
Vishal Ahuja had undertaken before the Hon'ble Court
that the cases filed by them on the Respondent No.2 and
her family members will be withdrawn by next date of
hearing. The Hon'ble Court directed the present petitioner
and his brother to withdraw cases against the
Respondent No. 2 and her family members. To solve the
entire matrimonial dispute and to come to a compromise
between the parties further orders for fulfillment of rest
of the conditions of compromise are requested to be
passed by the Hon'ble Court.

3. That the Present Petitioner in order to come to a
compromise after withdrawing the cases needs to file an
affidavit in this Hon'ble Court stating that the present
petitioner and his family members will have no right to
the custody, guardianship and visitation rights any
other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh and
the permanent sole custody and guardianship of the
minor child Shivansh shall vest in the Respondent No. 2
Sonal. The petitioner his family members will not do
any other claims/ demand over the minor child under any
circumstances whatsoever it may be in future also.

4. That the present petitioner after withdrawing his cases
and getting cases withdrawn from his relatives is also
required to file an affidavit himself and also get an
affidavit filed from his brother Vishal Ahuja stating that
they have withdrawn all the cases against the respondent
No. 2 and her family members and no other cases, FIRs,
Complaints have been filed by the Present Petitioner and
his family members on Respondent no.2 and her family
members and the Present Petitioner and his family
members will not file new litigation, complaint or any
other application before any authority/ Court/Forum in
this regard in future on the Respondent No. 2 and her
family members.

5. That the present petitioner also needs to refrain from
filing appeal against the decree of divorce granted by the
family court Sriganganagar on 21-04-2018 in case No.
CM610/15 and needs to submit an affidavit to this
Hon'ble Court stating that the Present Petitioner has not
challenged/filed appeal against the decree of divorce.

6. That the present petitioner has mentioned in tokc izkFkZuk
i on 07-06-2018 in family court Sriganganagar in the
first line of second page "izkFkhZ }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp
U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ds le{k vizkFkhZ;k }kjk j[ks x;s jkthukek ds pkj izLrkoksa
dks v{kj'k% Lohdkj fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ;k dh gj "krZ ekuus dks igys
(32 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

Hkh rS;kj Fkk vkSj vkt Hkh rS;kj gS " (Certified copy attached) The
present petitioner in his reply to Hon'ble High Court dated
12-06-2018 has mentioned is the last para that he is
ready to settle amicably all the matters and ready and
willing to fulfill all the condition mentioned in application
and revised application. According to the present
petitioner he is ready to fulfill the conditions of
compromise so the Hon'ble Court passed order dt
9/7/2018, the compliance of which is yet to be started by
the Present Petitioner.

7. That if the Present Petitioner files appeal against the
decree of divorce, the Respondent No.2 will again be
facing harassment.

8. That the minor child Shivansh has threat to life from the
Present Petitioner and his family members. In case the
Present Petitioner does not surrender Custody,
guardianship and Visitation Rights and any other right
with respect to the minor child Shivansh, the life of the
minor child will not be safe.

9. That if the Present Petitioner and his brother Vishal Ahuja
do not give affidavit that they have withdrawn all the
cases and will not file any new cases, FIRs, litigation
against the Respondent no.2 her family members, they
will be free to file new cases and harass the Respondent
No.2 and her family members.

10. That the Present Petitioner had attached an affidavit with
his reply dt.12/6/18 mentioning that the cases will be
withdrawn by his brother .The Present Petitioner has not
given any affidavit of withdrawing cases filed by himself.
Further the affdavit does not mentioned no.of
S.B.Crim.Misc.Petition with which it is associated and also
depicts wrong year 2018 instead of writing S.B. Crim.
Petition No. 3079/2017. There is also no mention of date
on which the affidavit was sworn.

It is a humble request that the present petitioner
be directed to fulfill all the conditions of
compromise of respondent No. 2 as mentioned in her
applications and written arguments as detailed in above
paragraph1 and directions may kindly be given to the
Present Petitioner to himself file and get filed proper
affidavits from his brother. After all the conditions of
compromise are met with, the compromise arrived at
between the parties with their free will, without any force
and corection need to be reduced to writing to be
singed in the presence of witnesses and all the parties be
remain bound by the settlement/compromise and abide
by the same and do not withdraw from the compromise
in any situation and circumstances. The compromise
arrived at needs to be filed in the Hon'ble High Court. In
case the present petitioner does not fulfill all the
conditions of compromise of respondent No.2, the
respondent No. 2 is not ready for any compromise.
In the absence of settlement of entire matrimonial
dispute the quashing of FIR under section 498A,
(33 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

406 IPC is requested not to be done and it is
requested that the written arguments of
respondent No.2 (Inward No. 5734/18),
documents (Inward No.14500/17), Certified copies
(Inward No.5720/18), along with citations and
wedding card be taken into consideration and
present Crlmp No. 3079/17, kindly be dismissed
and trial court be directed to do speedy trial and
impart justice the respondent No.2.

Date-19-07-2018

Humble Applicant/

Respondent No.2
Attachments with Fard Talbana:

1. Certified copy of tokc izkFkZuk i Sd/-

dt. 07-06-2018 of Family Court,
Shriganganagar (Sonal)

2. Postal receipts-6 No.s"

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on

09.07.2018, the petitioner and his relatives withdrew all

the cases filed by them against the respondent No.2 and

her parents and submitted certified copies of the orders

before this Court along with the affidavits of him, his elder

brother and mother. The affidavit of petitioner-Vikram

Ahuja is reproduced as under:

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017
(WITH STAY APPLICATION NO.3076/2017)
Date of Hearing 09.08.2017
Vikram Ahuja V/s State Anr.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Vikram Ahuja S/o Late Shri Sudharsh Ahuja, B/c Arora
aged about 42 years, Resident of Malout (Punjab) At present
House No.405, First Floor, Sec.4 Panch Kula (Haryana), do
hereby state on oath as under:-

(34 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

1. That I have withdrawn the petition No.37/2017 pending
before the family court Sri Ganganagar.

2. That I have withdrawn the complaint No.218/71 in the
court of CJM Sri Ganganagat against the Res. No.2.

3. That I have withdrawn all the cases against the
respondent No.2 her Family members and no other
cases FIR complaints have been filed by deponent.

4. That I will not file new litigation, complaint or any other
application before any authority /Court/ Form in the
regard in future on the respondent No.2 and her family
members.

5. That I have withdrawn the custody, guardianship
visitation rights any other right with respect to the minor
child Shivnash and the permant sole custody and
guardianship of the minor child Shivansh shall vest in
respondent No.2.

6. That I will not do any other claim/Demand over the minor
child under any circumstances whatever it may be in
future also.

7. That I will not challenged the order granted by the Family
Court Sri Ganganagar.

Sd/
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify on oath
that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct.
Nothing has been concealed and no part of it is false. So help
me God.

Sd/
DEPONENT"

The affidavit of Vishal Ahuja, elder brother of

petitioner Vikram Ahuja is reproduced as under:

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B.Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017
(WITH STAY APPLICATION NO.3076/2017)
Date of Hearing 09.08.2017

Vikram Ahuja V/s State Anr.

                          (35 of 43)                  [CRLMP-3079/2017]

AFFIDAVIT

I, Vishal Ahuja S/o Late Shri Sudhash Ahuja, B/c Arora, Aged
abour 44 years, Resident of Surja Ram Market Malout (Punjab)
do hereby state on oath as under:-

1. That I have withdrawn th complaint No.82/17 Pending in
the court of SDJM Malout (Punjab).

2. That I have withdrawn the FR No.81/2018 arising out of
FIR No.393/17 Police station Sadar Sri Ganganagar.

3. That I have withdrawn all the cases against the
respondent No.2 her family members and no other
cases FIR complaints have been filed by deponent.

4. That I will not file new litigation, complaint or any other
application before any authority/Court/Form in the regard
in future on the respondent No.2 and her family
members.

Sd/
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify on oath
that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct.
Nothing has been concealed and no part of it is false. So help
me God.

Sd/
DEPONENT"

The affidavit of Kamlesh, mother of petitioner

Vikram Ahuja is reproduced as under:

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017
(WITH STAY APPLICATION NO.3076/2017)
Date of Hearing 09.08.2017
Vikram Ahuja v/s State Anr.

AFFIDAVIT
I, Kamlesh W/o late Shri Sudharsh Ahuja, B/c Arora,
aged about 67 years, Resident of Surja Ram Market Malout
(Punjab) do hereby state on oath as under:-

(36 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

1. That I have not file any Complaint, Fir, Petition against
the respondent No.2 her Family members.

2. That I will not file new litigation, complaint or any other
application before any authority/Court/ Form in the
regard in future on the respondent No.2 and her family
members.

Sd/
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify on
oath that the contents of my above affidavit are tyrue and
correct. Nothing has been concealed and no part of it is false.
So help me God.

Sd/
DEPONENT"

From the above facts, it is clear that all the

cases filed by the petitioner, his brother and mother

against the respondent No.2 and her parents have already

been withdrawn. The petitioner has given an undertaking

to this effect that he would not file any appeal against the

decree of divorce granted in favour of respondent No.2 by

the Family Court, Sriganganagar on 21.04.2018. He has

also given an undertaking to this effect that he would not

file any criminal case against the respondent No.2 or her

relatives. The brother and mother of the petitioner have

also filed similar undertakings before this Court, which are

quoted earlier. The certified copies of all the cases filed on

behalf of the petitioner and his relatives are already

produced before this Court and from the above, it is clear

that the conditions put forth by the respondent No.2 in

various applications referred above have already been

fulfilled.

(37 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

It is very strange that on 09.08.2018 when this

criminal misc. petition came up for hearing, the

respondent No.2 informed this Court that she has already

moved an application on 08.08.2018 and is not ready for

compromise on any terms. She has raised objections in

respect of one affidavit filed by the petitioner on

17.06.2018 before this Court while pointing out certain

defects in the said affidavits i.e. number of this criminal

misc. petition is not written and the same does not refer

about visitation rights, withdrawal of cases of present

petitioner etc. She has also stated that as the petitioner

has made some false statements regarding return of

'Stridhan' etc. she is not ready for any compromise and

does not give her consent for compromise.

From the order-sheets of this criminal misc.

petition, it is clear that on each and every date, the

respondent No.2 remained present before this Court. This

matter has been listing before me from March, 2018 and I

distinctly remember that on every date the respondent

No.2 has specifically stated that she is ready for

compromise if all the criminal cases filed by the petitioner

and his brother are withdrawn and the petitioner waives

his visitation rights and any other rights with respect to

his son, however, when all the conditions on which the

respondent No.2 was insisting have been fulfilled, she has

filed an application on 08.08.2018 refusing to compromise

the matter. In the opinion of the Court such conduct of a
(38 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

litigant cannot be appreciated and is a clear case of abuse

the process of court.

It appears that on 08.08.2018, the respondent

No.2 was very well aware about the fact that all the

criminal cases including the application seeking

guardianship and custody of minor child, born out from

the wedlock of petitioner and respondent No.2 have been

dismissed as withdrawn and then she filed application,

raising frivolous grounds regarding defect in the affidavits

submitted earlier by the petitioner claiming that false

statements have been made by the petitioner. In the

opinion of the Court, a litigant, who first agrees for

compromise in a matrimonial dispute on certain

conditions, cannot repudiate from his/her agreement to

compromise the same after those conditions are fulfilled

by other party.

It seems that the intention of the respondent

No.2 is to harass the petitioner and his family members

even after withdrawal of all the cases instituted at their

instance in criminal courts. The respondent No.2 has failed

to establish that any other case instituted at the instance

of the petitioner or his family is pending against her or her

parents in any court of law. The above noted conduct of

the respondent No.2 indicates that she is attempting to

abuse the process of Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has come down

heavily on the litigants who attempt to abuse the process

in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Anr. vs. Pradnya
(39 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

Prakash Khadekar and Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 496,

wherein it has been held as under:

"13. This Court must view with disfavour any
attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The
sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously
eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A
litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with
the procedures of the Court should be left in no
doubt about the consequences to follow. Others
should not venture along the same path in the
hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial
leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even
necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as
in the law which is practised in our country, there
is no premium on the truth.

14. Courts across the legal system - this Court not
being an exception - are choked with litigation.
Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a
serious menace to the administration of justice.
They consume time and clog the infrastructure.
Productive resources which should be deployed in
the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in
attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay,
by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless
causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in
delay. Unfortunately, as the present case
exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is
misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of
the legitimate. The present case is an illustration
of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the
courts and of how successive applications have
been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in
whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the
process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts
to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be
curbed only if courts across the system adopt an
institutional approach which penalizes such
behavior. Liberal access to justice does not mean
access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message
must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be
allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies
designed to profit from the delays of the law.
Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here
and now our society will breed a legal culture
based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the
duty of every court to firmly deal with such
situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a
necessary instrument which has to be deployed to
weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of
(40 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can
set apart time to resolve genuine causes and
answer the concerns of those who are in need of
justice. Imposition of real time costs is also
necessary to ensure that access to courts is
available to citizens with genuine grievances.
Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate
causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases
which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be
allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a
matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast
upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is
not exploited by those who use the forms of the
law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all
courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same
manner."

I am of the firm opinion that it is a fit case

where strict action is required to be taken against the

respondent No.2 but taking into consideration that the

parents of her are of old age and she is also having

responsibility of a minor son, I restrain myself from

passing any order against respondent No.2 but she is

warned not to attempt to abuse the process of courts in

future.

Otherwise also, I have gone through the

material collected by the police during the course of

investigation, wherein the police have found prima facie

case against the petitioner for the offences punishable

under sections 498A and 406 IPC.

Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner and

respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.11.2008 at

Sriganganagar, thereafter the respondent No.2 stayed for

about 7 days at her in-laws house in Malout, Punjab and

thereafter they left for Panch Kula (Haryana), where the
(41 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

petitioner was doing his business. They went to Kerala and

Mumbai for honeymoon and started living at Panch Kula

(Haryana). The respondent No.2 has alleged in her

complaint that the petitioner demanded dowry from her

while residing at Panch Kula. She has also alleged that the

petitioner's mother, his elder brother and wife of his elder

brother had also demanded dowry from her, however the

said allegation of the respondent No.2 was not found true

by the police and, therefore, no charge-sheet has been

filed against those persons.

It is also to be noticed that the respondent No.2

filed an application under section 190 CrPC before the trial

court requesting for taking cognizance against the

petitioner's mother and elder brother and his wife,

however, the said application was rejected by the trial

court by passing a detailed order on 16.01.2017 with the

observations that there is no evidence available on record

to suggest that the said persons demanded dowry either

from the respondent No.2 or her parents.

In her statement recorded by the police under

section 161 CrPC, the respondent No.2 has alleged that all

the persons named in the complaint have treated her with

cruelty but no specific allegations have been levelled

against the petitioner. She has also not stated that the

petitioner ever demanded dowry at Sriganganagar.

So far as 'Stridhan' of the respondent No.2 is

concerned, it is noticed that respondent No.2 in her police

statements recorded on 21.06.2013 has admitted that " eSaus
(42 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

iapk;r esa esjs ifr ls esjs tsojkr tks esjs ekrk firk us fn;s Fks o esjh dkj tks

eqs ngst esa feyh Fkh ;s eSaus izkIr dj fy;s gSA ". Though, she has

further stated that the 'Stridhan' given to her by her in-

laws has not been returned to her. The father and mother

of the respondent No.2 in their statements recorded

before the police have also admitted that during

Panchayat, the ornaments and a car which were given in

the dowry, were returned to them but they have also

insisted that the other household items have not been

returned to her.

During the course of investigation, the police

recorded the statements of several persons, who have

stated that on 09.03.2011, a meeting of Panchayat was

convened in Fazilka, Punjab, where in the presence of

father and maternal uncle of the respondent No.2 and in

the presence of the petitioner and his some relatives, all

the dowry items and ornaments were handed over to the

father of the respondent No.2 and receipt whereof has

also been given by her father.

From the above, it can be gathered that

'Stridhan' of respondent No.2 was returned in March, 2011

itself i.e. much before filing of the complaint.

Taking into consideration the above facts, I am

of the opinion that sufficient material is not available on

record to frame charges against the petitioner under

section 498A and 406 IPC.

Having taken into consideration the material

available on record and the compromise proceedings taken
(43 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

place between the parties before this Court and other

facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal misc.

petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.08.2017

passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar

and the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Sriganganagar are set aside. The proceedings

pending against the petitioner in Cr.Case No.12/2016

pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Sriganganagar are terminated.

All the applications filed by respective parties

are disposed of.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

m.asif/PS

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