[2025:RJ-JP:47138]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1578/2017 Vikas Khanna @ Sunny S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Khanna, aged about 30 years, R/o House No. 299, Village Lahali, Tehsil Rohtak, Distt. Rohtak Haryana Presently R/o WZ-149, Gali No. 2, Shri Nagar, Rani Bagh, Delhi-110034 ----Accused-Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor

2. Manjeet Singh S/o Late Shri Manoharlal, R/o Village Shahbad, Tehsil Tijara, Distt. Alwar (Raj.).

----Complainant

3. Smt. Shweta D/o Shri Manjeet Anand W/o Shri Vikas Khanna @ Sunny, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Shahbad, Tehsil Tijara, Distt. Alwar (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

21/11/2025

1. Petitioner has filed this petition with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 402/2014 registered at Police Station Tijara, District Alwar including order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tijara, District Alwar (Raj.) in Criminal Case No. 36/2017 whereby, charge under Section 498A IPC was framed against the petitioner in proceedings pursuant to impugned FIR No. 402/2014.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive by the complainant whereas, the petitioner has not committed any offence alleged in the FIR. It is submitted that marriage of petitioner with respondent No. 3 took place on 17.02.2014. However, after marriage, there were differences of opinion between the couple and on account of indifferent and reluctant behaviour of respondent No.3, they could not continue their marital tie. Thereupon, the husband and wife decided to get their marriage dissolved and for that purpose, compromise was executed. Pursuant to compromise, accused- petitioner and respondent No.3 filed one joint petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent. In para 4 of the joint application under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955, it has been specified that pursuant to the compromise, respondent No.3-wife has received Rs.6,50,000/- against the expenses incurred on marriage as well as under the head of permanent alimony. It was also mentioned that the respondent No.3-wife shall not pursue any criminal proceedings against the petitioner or his family members.

3. It is submitted that the application under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 was filed on 24.09.2014 and the demand draft handed over by the petitioner to respondent No.3 was also encashed by her but, in quite malicious manner, thereafter, she did not appear before the learned Family Court in the proceedings on application under Section 13-B and on account of her non- appearance, the petition for seeking divorce by mutual consent was dismissed by the learned Family Court.

4. Under these circumstances, finding no alternative, the petitioner filed another petition under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak, which was duly contested by the respondent No.3. The petition filed by the petitioner has been allowed and decree of divorce has also been granted vide judgment dated 19.04.2018. While passing the judgment dated 19.04.2018, the learned Family Court, Rohtak observed as under:

It may further be pointed out here that the respondent has further raised allegations of harassment at the hands of petitioner and his family members on account of demand of dowry, but no evidence to this effect has been led by respondent. The petitioner has alleged that the behaviour of respondent was not good with him and his family members. To support this contention, petitioner has led oral evidence which has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. In addition to this, petitioner has raised specific allegations that the matter between the parties stood compromised and an am