[2025:RJ-JP:41450] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5315/2018 Shahida Alam W/o Solat Alam, R/o Meerji Ka Bagh, Infront of Masjid, Jalupura, Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shandilya with Mr. Kailash Meena & Mr. Jang Bahadur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 10/10/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a prayer to quash a criminal complaint lodged against her under Section 182/211 of IPC as well as for quashing the cognizance order dated 24.01.2017 and part of order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur (Rajasthan), whereby cognizance taken by the trial Court under Section 182 was maintained. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier she lodged one FIR No.71/2016 at Police Station Jalupura against her in-laws under Section 323, 341, 354 & 34 of IPC. However, as the dispute was between the family members, therefore, the responsible members of the community as well as police officials conducted conciliation in the matter and persuaded the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:41450] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5315/2018] not to pursue the FIR. Accordingly, on account of cooperation extended by the petitioner, negative final report was proposed by the Investigating Officer in respect of FIR No.71/2016. 3. Information with regard to filing negative FR was given to the petitioner being complainant in FIR and therefore on 19.07.2016, she submitted an application that she does not want to protest the FR and was not intended to file any protest petition, therefore, FR filed by the Police may be accepted. Accordingly, the FR was accepted by the competent Criminal Court. 4. Thereafter, the S.H.O. Police Station, Jalupura, Jaipur Siuth filed one criminal complaint against the petitioner under Section 211/182 IPC in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metro by stating that the petitioner lodged false FIR No.71/2016. On such complaint, cognizance was taken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 24.01.2017 under Section 182/211 IPC. Order of taking cognizance dated 24.01.2017 was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.15. Vide order dated 09.04.2018, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and the cognizance under Section 211 IPC was quashed, however, it was maintained so far as offence under Section 182 IPC is concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts mentioned above would reveal that the S.H.O. Police Station Jalupura has lodged complaint under Section 182/211 IPC against the petitioner in quite malicious manner and for no justified reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier [2025:RJ-JP:41450] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5315/2018] the police authorities persuaded the petitioner for entering into compromise with the accused persons in FIR No.71/2016 with the intention of settlement in Lok Adalat and for the purpose of putting a quietus to the dispute between the family and when in order to buy peace, the petitioner entered into compromise, in quite malicious manner complaint under Section 182/211 has been filed whereas, no such offence is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the contents of the complaint would not fulfill the essential requirement of Section 182 Cr.P.C. Hence, he prayed for quashing the order of cognizance, order of revisional Court as well as complaint itself. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal misc. petition and submitted that wherever the police authorities find that false information with the intend to cause public servant to use his power to injury of another person is given, the police authorities are empowered to lodge a complaint under Section 182/211 IPC against such informant/complainant. As such, there is no illegality in the action of the police authorities in lodging complaint against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the criminal misc. petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not disputed that FIR No.71/2016 was earlier lodged by the petitioner against her family members. Therefore, under these circumstances, earlier the police authorities conducted conciliation between the parties and when on such excise of conciliation, the petitioner agreed for not pursuing the [2025:RJ-JP:41450] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5315/2018] FIR, complaint has been lodged against her under Section 182/211 IPC. Such action of the police authorities is totally irrational, illogical as well as against the true intends and scope of provisions of Section 182 IPC. It is not a case, where despite full persuasion on the part of the complainant, after investigation negative FR was lodged by the police authorities, whereas it is a case, where the petitioner agreed as per Lok Adalat scheme of the Government and agreed not to pursue her FIR so as to maintain peace and harmony between the family members. She gave her consent on account of interference and indulgence of the members of community as well as police officials. Thus, at the one hand the police officials insisted her to put quietus to the dispute and on the other hand complaint under Section 182/211 IPC was lodged against the petitioner/complainant. Such action of the police authorities cannot be appreciated and is liable to be condemned. 9. Learned trial Court has ignored the true scope, extent and amplitude of provisions under Section 182/211 IPC and the revisional Court has also failed to exercise its jurisdiction in proper manner. 10. In the light of above, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash and set aside the criminal complaint (annex.- 2) along with all further proceedings including order of cognizance dated 24.01.2017. Hence, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /27