[2026:RJ-JP:28116] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 452/2017 URN: CRLMP / 700U / 2017 1. Priyanka Yadav W/o Kuldeep Poonia, D/o Sh. Jaisingh Yadav, R/o Ward No.8, Dhani Ahiron Ki, Dada Fatehpura, Dada Fatehpura, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. 2. Kuldeep Poonia S/o Sh. Satyaveer Singh, R/o Janau Khari, Rajgarh Churu, Rajgarh, District Churu, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. 2. Superintendent Of Police, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. 3. SHO, PS Khetri, Jhunjhunu, Raj. 4. Sh. Jaisingh Yadav S/o Jaidyal, R/o Ward No.8, Dhani Ahiron Ki, Dada Fatehpura, Dada Fatehpura, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niranjan Singh Raghav on behalf of Mr. Ramesh Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary,P.P. Mr. Arvind Bhadu Mr. Naresh Kumar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/07/2026 1. The instant petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned F.I.R. No.444/2016, registered at the Police Station Khetri, District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the complainant-respondent submit that both the accused-petitioner No.2 and the prosecutrix/petitioner No.1 have [2026:RJ-JP:28116] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-452/2017] solemnized registered marriage on 12.01.2017 and they have been residing together since last nine years. They submit that from the wedlock, two children have also been born and they are living a peaceful and happy marital life. They submit that the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner No.2, hence, in the interest of the petitioners marital life and future of their children, the proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 4. The prosecutrix 'P' has put appearance in-person and she has been duly identified by her counsel. She admits the factum of marriage and birth of two children from her marital wedlock with the accused-petitioner No.2. Now, she does not wants to prosecute him. She submitted that she has no objection, in case, the instant petition is allowed and the proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. be quashed. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and puerused the material available on record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by counsel for the petitioners as well as by counsel for the complainant and looking to the fact that the factum of marriage has been admitted by the prosecutrix herself by stating that she has solemnized registered marriage with the accused-petitioner No.2 on 12.01.2017 and out from their wedlock, two children have been born. 7. Looking to the fact that both parties are residing in a happy marital life along-with their newly born babies, continuation of the proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. would disturb their present and future life. [2026:RJ-JP:28116] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-452/2017] 8. Under the changed circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the accused-petitioner No.2 would tantamount to abuse of process of law. In order to secure the ends of justice and in the interest of prosecutrix, accused- petitioner and their children, the criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. No.444/2016, registered at the Police Station Khetri, District Jhunjhunu are quashed. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J 113/AMAN