[2025:RJ-JP:40342] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 747/2018 1. Daya Soni W/o Late Shri Moolchand Soni R/o Village Bhankri, Tehsil Kotputli, At Present Residing Delhi Darwaza, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Gulab Soni @ Golu S/o Late Shri Moolchand Soni R/o Village Bhankri, Tehsil Kotputli, At Present Residing Delhi Darwaza, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Accused/Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan. 2. Smt. Mamta Soni W/o Pawan Kumar Soni, R/o- Village Bhankri, Tehsil Kotputli, Dist. Jaipur, At Present Residing Village-Diwrala, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, Dist. Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Complainant/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Ayush Agarwal for Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/10/2025 1. In the instant criminal misc. petition, petitioners have challenged FIR No.869/2017 registered at Police Station Kotputli under Sections 498A & 406 IPC. 2. It is submitted that complainant-respondent No.2 is daughter-in-law of Petitioner No.1 and widow of brother of petitioner No.2. Marriage of the respondent No.2 and petitioners' son/brother Pawan Kumar Soni was solemnized on 16.11.2005. Thereafter, Shri Pawan Kumar Soni expired on 01.07.2017. As [2025:RJ-JP:40342] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-747/2018] there were marital discord between the deceased Pawan Soni and complainant Mamta Soni, before his death, Late Shri Pawan Soni executed a will of his share in the parental house and shop in favour of the petitioner No.1 on 23.03.2017. 3. After death of Late Shri Pawan Soni, who was husband of complainant-respondent No.2 on 01.07.2017, there was an ongoing dispute with regard to custody of children which was filed by the petitioners under Section 13 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for taking of custody of two minor children of Late Shri Pawan Soni who were born out of the wedlock of Late Shri Pawan Soni and complainant-respondent No.2. 4. It is submitted that after receiving the notices of aforesaid application under Section 13 of the Act of 1956, in order to counter blast, FIR under Section 498A, 406 IPC has been lodged on 25.12.2017. It is also informed that during the pendency of the instant criminal misc. petition, the complainant has also expired. Prayer has been made to quash and set-aside the FIR, being malicious, vexatious as well as to pressurize the petitioners to settle the civil dispute in favour of the complainant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 6. Bare perusal of the FIR dated 25.12.2017 would reveal that there is no whisper whatsoever in the entire FIR with regard to causing cruelty for demand of dowry. Hence, no case under Section 498A IPC can be said to be made out even by bare perusal of FIR. Even otherwise, sufficient material has been placed on record on behalf of the petitioner to show that in order to exhibit undue pressure for influencing the ongoing litigation between the [2025:RJ-JP:40342] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-747/2018] petitioners and complainant-respondent No.2, the impugned FIR was lodged by the complainant-respondent. So far as, the allegations with regard to Section 406 IPC are concerned, such allegations are general in nature and no entrustment whatsoever has been shown in the FIR. There is no reference with regard to will executed by Late Shri Pawan Soni in favour of petitioner No.1 in the entire FIR. In case, the complainant-respondent was aggrieved by the will executed by her late husband, she could have persuaded her remedies available to her under the relevant civil law. 7. In the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana Vs. State of Telangana & Anr. reported in 2025 (3) SCC 735, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that leveling vague and generalized allegations on account of marital discord would not come within the purview of Section 498A IPC and allowing such FIR to be proceeded further would lead to misuse of legal process. 8. In view of above discussion and after perusing the allegations leveled in the impugned FIR, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and thereby, the impugned FIR No. 869/2017 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Kotputli under Section 498A & 406 IPC is hereby quashed and set-aside. 9. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed, accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/44