Allegations in FIR filed post-divorce petition are retaliatory, warranting quashing of criminal proceedings under inherent jurisdiction due to abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. By way of filing present criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of criminal proceedings in Case No. 425/2018 titled as State Vs. Alok Kumar Chaturvedi pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’).

2. It is stated that the petitioner performed marriage with Respondent no. 2-complainant in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies on 24.11.2012. However, soon after marriage, marital discord came to surface and they decided to break the marital trial. Accordingly, one compromise was executed on 23.03.2013, which was signed by both the parties as well as by the witnesses and the same was also got attested through Notary Public. As per the terms of the compromise, Respondent No. 2 was having physical relations with some other person, therefore, it was not possible to continue the marital tie and both the parties to the marriage decided to get divorce by mutual consent. As per clauses of the compromise, it was accepted by Respondent No. 2- complainant that the petitioner had returned all the stridhan to Respondent No. 2-complainant and no article with regard to her stridhan was in possession of the petitioner. Further, she would not lodge any criminal case against the petitioner or his family members under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as ' IPC ') or even complaint under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; and soon after completion of one year from the date of marriage, the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2-complainant would file a joint petition for getting divorce by mutual consent and Respondent No. 2-complainant has also received Rs. 3,00,000/- as one time lump sum alimony from the petitioner and she would not claim any maintenance in future.

3. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1955’), petition for getting decree of divorce even by mutual consent cannot be filed within a period of one year from the date of marriage. Hence, pursuant to aforesaid compromise dated 23.03.2013, after completion of one year from the date of marriage, the petitioner asked Respondent No. 2 to file a joint petition under Section 13B of the Act of 1955 as earlier agreed between the parties. However, Respondent No. 2 refused to do so. Under these circumstances, finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed petition seeking decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage on 07.04.2014 before Family Court No. 2, Jaipur. Notices of divorce petition filed by the petitioner were sent to Respondent No.2 on 14.05.2014. However, she refused to accept the notice and accordingly, report was made by the process server of the Family Court concerned. After having knowledge of the fact that the petitioner has filed divorce petition against the complainant, she submitted a complaint before the trial court which was sent to Police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the complaint, FIR No. 139/2014 was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Jaipur City (East) for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323,, 341 and 120B IPC against the petitioner and his entire family on 12.06.2014, wherein she levelled allegations of committing cruelty to her, demand of dowry. It was also alleged in the FIR that the petitioner got the compromise executed by misrepresenting the complainant and her signatures were obtained on blank papers. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer came to conclusion that no offence has been committed by other family members of the petitioner. However, offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 were prima facie shown to have been made out against the petitioner and his sister, Smt. Mamta Chaturvedi.

4. It is further submitted that sister of the petitioner, Sm