Satyanarayan S/O Shri Bajrang Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3331 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2190/2020

Satyanarayan S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Mahawar, R/o H.no. 151,
Veer Sawarkar Nagar U.i.t. Colony, Rangwadi Road, Behind
Mother Terasa School, Kota, Distt. Kota Raj.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.     Rameshwari Mahawar D/o Shri Gopraj Ji Mahawar, R/o
       Housing Board Colony, Gupteshwer Road, Ps Kotwali,
       Dausa, Dist Dausa, Raj.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhu Sudan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP.

Mr. P. S. Rajawat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

Order reserved on : 22/04/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 26/04/2022

1. By way of this this criminal miscellaneous petition, petitioner

wants to quash FIR No.138/2019 registered at Police Station

Mahila Thana, Dausa for the offence punishable under Sections

498A, 406 and 323 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 lodged the present

FIR against the petitioner on the same ground in which she has

lodged the previous FIR against the petitioner in the year, 2012 as

FIR No.09/2012, Police Station Mahila Thana, Dausa in which

compromise had been entered between the parties. So, present

FIR filed by the respondent No.2 is not maintainable. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondent No.2 is not

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-2190/2020]

interested to reside with the petitioner. Petitioner had filed an

application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before learned

Family Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

complainant had also lodged the report against the petitioner and

his family members on 24.12.2018 on the same facts at Police

Station Mahila Thana, Kota City in which she had also entered into

compromise with the petitioner. So, respondent No.2 is a habitual

in lodging FIRs on fabricating concocted stories. So, present FIR is

not maintainable. The present FIR No.138/2019 as well as

consequential proceedings, be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments

passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in T. T. Antony Vs. State of

Kerala and Ors.; Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2001,

Damodaran P and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.; Civil

Appeal No.4066 of 2001, State of Kerala and Ors Vs.

Revada Chandrasekhar and Ors; Criminal Appeals Nos.690-

91 of 2001 reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, Anand Kumar

Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi)

Department of Home and Anr.; Criminal Appeal

No.1395/2018 reported in 2019(1) WLC (SC) Cri.96, and

passed by Rajasthan High Court in Kapil and Ors Vs. State of

Rajasthan; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

No.1059/2010 reported in 2010(2) R.Cr.D.245(Raj.) and Jay

Laxmi D/o Shri Surajmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.;

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.7252/2019

connected with Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh Vs.

State of Rajasthan and Anr.; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous

Petition No.4208/2019.

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-2190/2020]

4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after investigation,

chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner under Section

498A, 406 IPC. So, the present petition is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that it is an

admitted position that complainant has lodged FIR in the year,

2012 but the said FIR was withdrawn on account of compromise.

After compromise, petitioner had not complied with the terms and

conditions of the compromise and he used to harass her. So,

present FIR was lodged. Learned counsel for the complainant

further submits that offence under Section 498A is continuing

offence. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and

learned counsel for the complainant.

6. It is admitted position that the complainant had firstly filed

FIR in the year 2012 in which compromise entered between the

parties and the said FIR was quashed. After that, as per

contention of respondent No.2, petitioner has resiled from the

compromise and used to harass her. So, she had lodged the

report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Kota City in the year, 2018.

In the said report, proceedings were closed on account of

compromise but petitioner continuously harassed the complainant.

So, present FIR was lodged.

7. In my considered opinion, complainant had not suppressed

any fact regarding lodging the previous FIR and offence under

Section 498A is continuing offence. So, it cannot be said that the

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-2190/2020]

present FIR is not maintainable. So, petition filed by the

petitioner, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands

dismissed.

9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Seema/115

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)