[2025:RJ-JP:50595]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2612/2021

1. Rajkumar Bairwa Son of Shri Ram Bharose Bairwa, Age

About 30 years,

2. Ram Bharose Son of Late Shri Baldev Ji, Age About 60

Years,

3. Prembai Wife of Shri Ram Bharose, Age About 51 Years,

All Residents of Gali Number 4, Durga Nagar, Sakatpura,

Shambupura, Kota, Rajasthan.

----Accused/Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through PP.

----Respondent

2. Jyoti Bairwa Daughter of Shri Nathulal Bairwa, Residence

of Hotel Ki Gali, Mandir K Pass, Kethoon, Jalkhera, Kota

Rural, Kota, Rajasthan.

----Complainant/Petitioner

For Petitioners : Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Sharma Public Prosecutor.

Ms. Rekha Arora Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

15/12/2025

1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 09/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kota for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as ‘IPC’) as also

entire proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that marriage of Petitioner No. 1 was solemnised with Respondent

No. 2-complainant on 21.04.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. For initial few years, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2-complainant resided peacefully. However, on account of marital discord between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2-complainant, impugned FIR No. 09/2021 has been lodged by Respondent No. 2-complainant against Petitioner No. 1, husband; Petitioner No. 2, father-in-law and Petitioner No.

3, mother-in-law.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are general and omnibus in nature and simply resultant of dissatisfaction of the complainant with the marriage.

4. It is submitted that after lodging of FIR and during pendency of instant criminal misc. petition, compromise dated 05.04.2024 has been entered into between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, wherein both of them have agreed to get their marriage dissolved by mutual consent and even lump sum permanent alimony has also been received by Respondent No.2-

complainant.

5. It is further submitted that as per compromise dated 05.04.2024, the complainant agreed not to pursue impugned FIR No. 09/2021, which was lodged by her on account of some confusion and without understanding the consequences. It was further agreed by Respondent No. 2-complainant that she would co-operate in this regard before this Court in the present criminal misc. petition and tender her no objection for getting impugned FIR quashed. It is further submitted that pursuant to said compromise, both the parties to the marriage submitted an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and vide judgment and decree dated 05.04.2024 passed by the Family Court No. 1, Kota (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Family Court'), their marriage has been dissolved on the basis of compromise.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of above, no fruitful result would be yielded in case the petitioners are allowed to be prosecuted pursuant to impugned FIR No. 09/2021.

7. Copy of compromise dated 05.04.2024 as well as judgment and decree dated 05.04.2024 passed by the Family Court have been placed on record by the petitioners.

8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-complainant has not disputed the fact that after filing of present criminal misc. petition, compromise dated 05.04.2024 has been entered into between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2-complainant and on the basis of same, decree of divorce by mutual consent has been passed by the competent court. Learned counsel further submits that in view of terms of the compromise, she has got instructions not to oppose for quashing of FIR No. 09/2021.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the c