[2025:RJ-JP:44858] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6865/2018 1. Sumit Singhal S/o Shri Kishan Singhal, aged about 33 Years, R/o House No.48, Old House Board Colony, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, Haryana. 2. Shri Kishan Singhal S/o Shri Durga Prasad, aged about 60 Years, R/o House No.48, Old House Board Colony, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, Haryana. 3. Smt. Pramila Singhal W/o Shri Kishan Singhal, aged about 50 Years, R/o House No.48, Old House Board Colony, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, Haryana. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Smt. Priya D/o Shri Rambabu Goyal, aged about 28 Years, R/o House No. C-295, Mahesh Nagar, Gopalpura, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/11/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing FIR No.113/2018 dated 19.09.2018 registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 341, 354(a), 384 & 120B of IPC. 2. It is stated that marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with complainant-respondent on 07.12.2012. [2025:RJ-JP:44858] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6865/2018] Petitioner No.2 is father-in-law of the complainant whereas petitioner No.3 is her mother-in-law. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after expiry of some time, marital discord came to surface which made it impossible for the petitioner No.1 and the complainant to continue their marital life together, hence, in order to settle all the disputes with the intervention of close relatives, an agreement in the form of compromise was executed on 27.07.2017. As per terms of compromise dated 27.07.2017, the petitioner No.1 as well as complainant agreed for filing an application for seeking divorce with mutual consent and one cheque bearing No.028126 dated 27.07.2017 was also issued by the accused-petitioner No.1 in favour of complainant as one time lump sum alimony. On the same day, one petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 13(b)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') was filed by the petitioner No.1 and the complainant. During the pendency of aforesaid petition for seeking divorce by mutual consent, the cheque which was issued as one time alimony, was got encashed by the complainant and thereafter, in quite malicious manner, she withdrew her consent for taking divorce by mutual consent by way of giving a statement on 16.09.2017 and, accordingly, the petition for mutual consent was dismissed on 16.09.2017 by the District Judge, Family Courts, Bhiwani (Haryana). Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 filed application under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 for seeking divorce from the complainant. 4. Reply to the divorce petition was also filed on behalf of the complainant and in the reply also nothing was revealed by the [2025:RJ-JP:44858] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6865/2018] complainant with regard to any alleged cruelty committed by the petitioner No.1 or his family members for demand of dowry, nor were there any other allegations in respect of criminal breach of trust or outraging the modesty of woman. However, the impugned FIR was lodged by the complainant on 19.09.2018, implicating the petitioner No.1-husband as well as petitioner No.2-father-in-law and petitioner No.3-mother-in-law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it would reveal by perusing contents of the earlier joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 that the complainant agreed that she was residing separately away from matrimonial home since May, 2015. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also indicated that in the entire FIR nothing has been mentioned that the complainant resumed residing at her matrimonial home after May, 2015 and further submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged maliciously in order to harass and victimize the petitioners, after encashing the cheque of alimony and to exert undue pressure upon the petitioners, so that the application for taking divorce filed by the petitioner No.1 under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 could be negotiated in favour of the complainant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that after lodging the impugned FIR, again one petition for taking divorce by mutual consent was filed jointly by petitioner No.1 and the complainant, which has been decreed by the learned Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.05.2019. [2025:RJ-JP:44858] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6865/2018] 8. In the light of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing the impugned FIR No.113/2018. 9. Despite service, nobody is present on behalf of the complainant to oppose the instant petition. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 11. Series of facts mentioned hereinabove would make it clear that the impugned FIR is simply resultant of long matrimonial litigation between the petitioner No.1 and the complainant. Under the circumstances, where the petitioner No.1 and the complainant were residing separately since May, 2015 and in the year 2017 by way of executing one compromise, they agreed for separation by filing application for divorce by mutual consent. While filing a joint application for seeking divorce by mutual consent, a cheque for one time permanent alimony was accepted and encashed by the complainant. Her conduct of withdrawing her consent for granting mutual divorce subsequently as well as lodging of the impugned FIR on filing separate and independent application for seeking divorce by the petitioner No.1 under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 would make it clear that the complainant has acted maliciously and the FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive to unnecessarily pressurize the petitioners. 12. In view of the fact that thereafter, again the complainant has agreed for divorce by mutual consent and on filing joint application, same has also been granted vide judgment and decree dated 01.05.2019 passed by the learned Family Court. [2025:RJ-JP:44858] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6865/2018] Moreso, looking to the fact that nobody is present to oppose the instant petition for quashing of FIR on behalf of the complainant, in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash the FIR No.113/2018 registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, District- Jaipur City (South) for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 341, 354(a), 384 & 120B of IPC along with all subsequent proceedings. 13. 13. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/56