Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gaurav Agarwal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22253) on 8 May, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:22253]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5223/2024
1. Sushila Agarwal W/o Shri Mahendra, Aged About 62
Years, R/o J Sector, Azad Nagar, Dist. Bhilwara,raj.
2. Mahednra Agarwal S/o Shri Chiranjeevlal, Aged About 64
Years, R/o J Sector, Azad Nagar, Dist. Bhilwara,raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Smt. Riya Agarwal D/o Shri Kamal Nathani, R/o J Sector,
Azad Nagar, Dist. Bhilwara,raj.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2445/2025
Gaurav Agarwal S/o Shri Mahendra Agarwal, Aged About 26
Years, Resident Of J Sector, Azad Nagar, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Smt. Riya Agarwal D/o Shri Kamal Nathani, Resident Of J
Sector, Azad Nagar, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Khilery.
Mr. Aslam Khan on behalf of
Mr. Vishal Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP
with Mr. Omprakash Choudhary.
Mr. Kalptaru Tripathi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
08/05/2025
These criminal misc. petitions under Section 528 of BNSS
(482 Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing
of the FIR No.116/2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana
(Bhilwara), District Bhilwara Rural for the offences under Sections
[2025:RJ-JD:22253] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5223/2024]
498A, 406, 342, 376 and 511 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
parties have settled their disputes and have arrived at a
compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a
decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Prashant
Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.708
of 2021 decided on 30.07.2021 and B.S. Joshi Vs. State of
Haryana, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675. He therefore prayed
that the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed.
Learned counsel for the complainant concurs the factum of
compromise and submits that in view of the compromise, the
complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.
Attention of the Court was drawn towards a compromise
deed wherein, the complainant has stated that she has decided to
resolve the dispute amicably with the present petitioners in the
spirit of Lok Adalat and does not wish to continue with the present
litigation.
This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya (supra),
relevant portion of which reads as follows:-
"3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter
alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that
both the Accused (Appellant) and Respondent No. 2 were
living together for a considerable while. The complainant's
allegation is that the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting
to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the
accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.
4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were
referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child
[2025:RJ-JD:22253] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5223/2024]
was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a
consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the
maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.
5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on
behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this
may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution
further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal
proceedings must be quashed.
6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the
impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the FIR
(No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is,
however, made clear that this order will not come in the way
or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in
any other pending proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be
decided in accordance with law.
7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent."
In view of compromise arrived at between the parties, as
also the careful perusal of the compromise deed and applying the
ratio of the decision in Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi
(supra) and B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court deems it just and
proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 528
of BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.).
Accordingly, these misc. petitions are allowed. The FIR
No.116/2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (Bhilwara),
District Bhilwara Rural for the offences under Sections 498A, 406,
342, 376 and 511 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder
against the petitioners, are quashed.
Stay applications stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
223-224-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
