[2025:RJ-JP:47138] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1578/2017 Vikas Khanna @ Sunny S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Khanna, aged about 30 years, R/o House No. 299, Village Lahali, Tehsil Rohtak, Distt. Rohtak Haryana Presently R/o WZ-149, Gali No. 2, Shri Nagar, Rani Bagh, Delhi-110034 ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor 2. Manjeet Singh S/o Late Shri Manoharlal, R/o Village Shahbad, Tehsil Tijara, Distt. Alwar (Raj.). ----Complainant 3. Smt. Shweta D/o Shri Manjeet Anand W/o Shri Vikas Khanna @ Sunny, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Shahbad, Tehsil Tijara, Distt. Alwar (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 21/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 402/2014 registered at Police Station Tijara, District Alwar including order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tijara, District Alwar (Raj.) in Criminal Case No. 36/2017 whereby, charge under Section 498A IPC was framed against the petitioner in proceedings pursuant to impugned FIR No. 402/2014. [2025:RJ-JP:47138] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-1578/2017] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive by the complainant whereas, the petitioner has not committed any offence alleged in the FIR. It is submitted that marriage of petitioner with respondent No. 3 took place on 17.02.2014. However, after marriage, there were differences of opinion between the couple and on account of indifferent and reluctant behaviour of respondent No.3, they could not continue their marital tie. Thereupon, the husband and wife decided to get their marriage dissolved and for that purpose, compromise was executed. Pursuant to compromise, accused- petitioner and respondent No.3 filed one joint petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent. In para 4 of the joint application under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955, it has been specified that pursuant to the compromise, respondent No.3-wife has received Rs.6,50,000/- against the expenses incurred on marriage as well as under the head of permanent alimony. It was also mentioned that the respondent No.3-wife shall not pursue any criminal proceedings against the petitioner or his family members. 3. It is submitted that the application under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 was filed on 24.09.2014 and the demand draft handed over by the petitioner to respondent No.3 was also encashed by her but, in quite malicious manner, thereafter, she did not appear before the learned Family Court in the proceedings on application under Section 13-B and on account of her non- appearance, the petition for seeking divorce by mutual consent was dismissed by the learned Family Court. [2025:RJ-JP:47138] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-1578/2017] 4. Under these circumstances, finding no alternative, the petitioner filed another petition under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak, which was duly contested by the respondent No.3. The petition filed by the petitioner has been allowed and decree of divorce has also been granted vide judgment dated 19.04.2018. While passing the judgment dated 19.04.2018, the learned Family Court, Rohtak observed as under: It may further be pointed out here that the respondent has further raised allegations of harassment at the hands of petitioner and his family members on account of demand of dowry, but no evidence to this effect has been led by respondent. The petitioner has alleged that the behaviour of respondent was not good with him and his family members. To support this contention, petitioner has led oral evidence which has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. In addition to this, petitioner has raised specific allegations that the matter between the parties stood compromised and an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was received by the respondent vide draft No.152605 dated 24.10.2014. This fact has been admitted by the respondent in the reply that this much amount was received by her from the petitioner. However, it has been alleged that though the matter was compromised, but the petitioner himself did not comply with the terms of the compromise. It has been alleged that the petitioner did not return the articles belonging to the respondent i.e. her Istridhan, dowry articles and other golds ornaments etc. The petitioner has produced compromise Exhibit P2 on the file. This compromise was filed along with petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act earlier filed between the parties at Alwar. In the said compromise, it has specifically been mentioned in clause-4 that the respondent has received all her belongings including gold ornaments etc. Besides, an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was also received by her. An amount of Rs.6,50,000/- has been shown to be withdrawn from the account of petitioner on 22.09.2014 and a DD was prepared out of the said amount on the same day. From the statement of [2025:RJ-JP:47138] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-1578/2017] petitioner and the contents of compromise Exhibit P2, it is clearly established that earlier a compromise was effected between the parties according to which the respondent received the abovesaid amount through DD. But later on, she did not appear before the Court where petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act was pending and the same was accordingly dismissed for non-appearance of respondent. This fact has specifically been stated by the petitioner in his statement which stands supported through other oral and documentary evidence available on the file. The respondent in her written statement nowhere stated that she appeared before the Court where petition under Section 13B of H.M. Act was pending. Thus, it can be concluded that despite receiving of all her belongings from the petitioner and despite receiving the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- as per compromise Exhibit P2, the respondent did not appear in the petition under Section 13B of H.M. Act. The non-appearance of respondent in the said petition is certainly cruelty upon the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner deserves dissolution of their marriage. Accordingly, this issue stands decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after granting decree of divorce, the respondent No.3 has also performed marriage with another person and is leading marital life happily with him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite there being clear cut condition in the compromise as well as in the joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955, the respondent No. 3 did not tender her consent for withdrawing the proceedings pursuant to impugned FIR No. 402/2014, which was lodged immediately before execution of compromise. 7. Learned counsel submits that the aforementioned facts would reveal that the respondent No.3 is pursuing the impugned FIR only on account of wreaking vengeance and with ulterior [2025:RJ-JP:47138] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-1578/2017] motive only to harass the petitioner, and looking to the conduct, it is clear that the FIR has not been lodged by her with bonafide intentions. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant although opposed the petition however, could not dispute the fact that earlier petition under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 was filed by the respondent No.3 along with petitioner in which, it was narrated that the compromise has already been entered into wherein, the respondent No.3 agreed for not to pursue any criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that although, the fact of compromise has been brought on record and thereafter, the respondent No.3 has not appeared before the Investigating Officer. 10. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as record, it is clear that the dispute has arisen on account of some marital discord however, the same was immediately settled between the parties by executing compromise and the compromise was also acted in part by respondent No.3 where, she filed a joint petition for seeking divorce with mutual consent and also received amount of Rs.6,50,000/- under the head of 'permanent alimony' as well as expenses incurred on marriage. It has also come on record that so far as, allegation under Section 406 IPC is concerned, even, the Investigating Officer has not found any offence to have been made out against the petitioner and with regard to offence under Section 498A, the respondent No.3 has not turned up to pursue the matter. [2025:RJ-JP:47138] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-1578/2017] 11. Nevertheless, the facts stated hereinabove are sufficient to infer that the impugned FIR is nothing but, a retaliation on account of dissatisfaction of respondent No.3 with the marriage and a device to harass and victimize the petitioner. After entering into compromise and after grant of decree of divorce by the Court at Rohtak, now, the respondent No.3 has also performed re-marriage with some other person. Under these circumstances, in case, the petitioner is allowed to be prosecuted and to undergo trial pursuant to impugned FIR it would be sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court in it's exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, in order to secure ends of justice, hereby quash and set aside the FIR No. 402/2014 along with all subsequent proceedings. 12. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands allowed. 13. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/32