[2025:RJ-JP:46399] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 371/2013 1. Alena Gupta S/o Shri Anoop Gupta aged-- years, R/o B-45, Mahanagar, Bareilly, Utter Pradesh. 2. Anoop Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri G.S. Gupta aged 48 years, R/o 15-B, Umang (Part-I0 Mahanagar, Bareilly. 3. Vijay Gupta S/o Late Shri Vishwanath Gupta, aged 60 years, R/o 166 Doon Vihar Colony, Jakhan, Dehradoon, Uttranchal 4. Krishna Gupta W/o Shri Vijay Gupta, aged 56 years, R/o 166 Doon Vihar Colony, Jakhan, Dehradoon, Uttranchal. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through PP 2. Shri Ravindra Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o K-47, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2999/2012 Rishikesh Gupta S/o Shri Shyamsunder Gupta, Aged 37 years, R/o Flat No. 220, Block Health Rise, Lewishard, London SE 137 PN (U.K.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan 2. Shri Ravindra Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o K-47, Himmar Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh & Mr. P.L Bairwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Ms. Ananya Gupta for Mr. Deepak Chauhan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 18/11/2025 1. Both the criminal misc. petitions have been filed by the petitioners for seeking direction to quash FIR No. 117/2010 dated 02.10.2010 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District [2025:RJ-JP:46399] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-371/2013] Jaipur City for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 & 504 of IPC. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute has arisen on account of the fact that after marriage of petitioner-Rishikesh Gupta with Retu Singh Parihar, certain marital disputes came to surface. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid petitions, divorce has taken place between them and they are leading their life separately and happily. A decree of divorce dated 08.06.2012 has been granted by the High Court of Justice Principal Registry of the Family Division, London, and has also been placed on record as Annexure-9. 3. It is submitted that FIR was lodged by brother of petitioner’s wife Retu Singh Parihar and in view of the fact that both the spouses have settled their disputes and are living separately, the complainant showed his inclination not to pursue the impugned FIR against the petitioners. 4. Accordingly, directions were given by the Coordinate Bench of this Court to complainant Ravindra Singh for appearing before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for recording of statements. In compliance thereof, the complainant Ravindra Singh was present before this Court on 04.11.2025 and recorded his statements before the Registrar (Judicial). 5. The statements given by the complainant are being reproduced hereunder: "fjrq flag ifjgkj esjh cgu gSA mudh 'kknh fjf"kds'k xqIrk ds lkFk gqbZ FkhA mu nksuksa esa vkilh fookn gks tkus ds ckn rykd ys fy;k Fkk vkSj oks vc vyx&vyx jg jgs gSA eSaus fjf"kds'k xqIrk o muds fj'rsnkj vysuk xqIrk] vuwi dqekj xqIrk] fot; xqIrk] Ñ".kk xqIrk ds fo:) efgyk Fkkuk] t;iqj 'kgj ¼iwoZ½ esa ,QvkbZvkj ua0 117@2010 ntZ djkbZ FkhA eSa mDr ,QvkbZvkj esa fdlh ds Hkh f[kykQ dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrk gwWA D;ksafd esjh cgu us nwljh 'kknh djds [2025:RJ-JP:46399] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-371/2013] vius ifjokj ds lkFk vkjke ls jg jgh gS blfy;s ;s izdj.k lkjghu gks x;k gS eSa bldks vkxs ugha pykuk pkgrk gwW vkSj u gh ,QvkbZvkj ua0 117@2010 esa vkxs dksbZ dk;Zokgh pkgrk gwWA eq>s vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA" 6. In the light of above, whereafter settlement of dispute between the petitioner Rishikesh Gupta and his wife Retu Singh Parihar, the complainant has consciously decided not to prosecute the petitioners, it would be vexatious for the petitioners, in case, they are allowed to be prosecuted further, pursuant to impugned FIR as in the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, there are very bleak chances for conviction of the petitioners. 7. Hence, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., deems it just and proper to quash and set-aside the FIR No. 117/2010 along with all subsequent proceedings. 8. Both the criminal misc. petitions are allowed, accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/43-44