Rajeev Sachdeva @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.80/2010 dated 24.03.2010 registered at Police

Station Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 I.P.C.

This Court on 31.07.2018 had issued notice to the respondents for today.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted, at bar, that the respondents were informed but they are not coming forward to

facilitate quashing of impugned F.I.R.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others, reported as (2005) 3 S.C.C.

299 and Mohd. Shamim and Others Vs. Nahid Begum (Smt.) and another, reported as (2005) 3 S.C.C. 302, to contend that if the compromise has

been affected in the matrimonial dispute and thereafter, the respondent-wife cannot resile from the compromise.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

No.4312/2012, titled as Rajeev Sachdeva and Others Vs. Shikha Sachdeva and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.62/2013, titled as Smt. Shikha

Sachadeva Vs. Rajeev Sachadeva and Others, decided on 28.05.2018.

The order dated 28.05.2018 passed in above said two petitions reads as under :-

“By this common order, SBCRLMP No. 4312/2012 preferred by Rajeev Sachdeva and others against Shikha Sachdeva and SBCRLR No. 62/2013

filed by Shikha Sachdeva against Rajeev Sachdeva and others, shall be decided together.

SBCRLMP No. 4312/2012 has been filed to assail the order dated 13.8.2012 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby

Rs. 6,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent aggrieved wife and furthermore Rs.6,000/- each per month was awarded in favour of

two children of Rajeev Sachdeva and respondent Shikha Sachdeva namely Anshul and Kashish.

SBCRLR No. 62/2013 has been preferred by Shikha Sachdeva aggrieved wife praying for enhancement of the amount of maintenance.

Briefly stated, on 27.4.2001 Shikha Sachdeva was married with Rajeev Sachdeva as per Hindu customs and rites. Two children namely Anshul son

and Kashish daughter were born. During subsistence of marriage, differences arose and Shikha Sachdeva lodged the impugned FIR. During pendency

of proceedings, better sense prevailed and on 30.4.2018 parties obtained divorce.

During pendency of the present petitions, a prayer was made that both the petitions be decided on the basis of compromise.

This court on 25.5.2018 ordered Dy. Registrar (Judicial) to record the statement of Rajeev Sachdeva and Shikha Sachdeva, after they are duly

identified. In pursuance of the said order, Dy. Registrar (Judicial) has recorded separate statements of Shikha Sachdeva and Rajeev Sachdeva. Both

the statements are taken on record and are made part of the paper book. For facility and ready reference, statement of Shikha Sachdeva recorded by

Dy. Registrar (Judicial) is reproduced below:-

“eSa f'k[kk lpnsok iq=h Jh fd'ku dqekj vjksMk] vk;q 36 Ok""kZ] tkfr iatkch] fuoklh&75] U;w jktkikdZ] jkexyh u a0 8] t;iqj ftyk t;iqj ¼jkt0½A

'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrh gwW fd esjh 'kknh Jh jktho lpnsok ls fnukad 27-04-2001 dks fgUnq jhfr&fjokt ls t;iqj esa lEiUu gq;h FkhA bl 'kknh ls eq>s nks

lUrku mRiUu gq;hA ftudk uke va'kqy lpnsok ,ao df'k'k lpnsok gSA tks orZeku esa esjs lkFk jg jgs gSA jktho lpnsok th o muds ifjokj esjs ls ekjihV djrs

Fks vkSj ngst ds fy, ijs'kku djrs FksA bl ckr ls ijs'kku gksdj eSaus jktho lpnsok vkSj muds ifjokjokyksa ds f[kykQ ngst dk eqdnek ntZ djk;k FkkA gekjk

vkilh lgefr ls jkthukek gks pqdk gSA jkthukes ds vuqlkj jktho lpnsok rFkk muds ifjokjokys esjs mij ,ao esjs ifjokj ds mij yxk;s gq;s lHkh eqdnes okfil ys

ys xa s rFkk eSa Hkh jktho lpnsok ,ao muds ifjokj ds mij yxk;s x;s lHkh eqdnesa okfil ys ysaxsA

jkthukesa ds vuqlkj cPpksa dh dLVMh esjs ikl gh jgsaxh vkSj jktho Hkfo""; esa esjs cPpks a dh dLVMh ds lEcU/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ

dk;Zokgh ugha djsxsA eq>s jkthukes ds vuqlkj 30 yk[k dk MhMh eq>s fey pqdk gS ,ao 23 yk[k dk ds'k jkds'k lpnsok tks fd jktho lpnsok dk cMk

HkkbZ gS dk edku [kkyh djus ij fey pqdk gSA eSaus edku dh pkch jkds'k lpnsok dks lkSai nh gSA gekjk fookg&foPNsn fnukad 30-04-2018 dks vkilh

lgefr ls gks pqdk gSA eSa Hkfo""; esa vc vkxs dk;Zokgh ugh a djuk pkgrh gwWA eq>s vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA

uksV%&xokg dk c;ku esjs funsZ'ku esa muds dgs vuqlkj Vad.kdrkZ }kjk dEI;wVj ij Vafdr fd;k x;k] ftls xokg dks ik;k x;k rks mlus

mDr dFkuksa dks lqu o le> dj lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kAâ€​

Considering that the compromise has been affected between the parties and Shikha Sacheva towards cost of litigation and expenses incurred towards

marriage and permanent alimony has already received Rs.53 Lakhs, both the petitions are disposed of in terms of the compromise discernible in

statement of Shikha Sachdeva reproduced above.

Accordingly, in view of the permanent alimony received by respondent Shikha Sachdeva on her behalf and on behalf of two children, the orders

passed by the two courts below are set aside.â€​

In view of statement made by respondent â€" Smt. Shikha Sachadeva, which form part of the order dated 28.05.2018 reproduced herein above, the

present petition is accepted and the impugned F.I.R. No.80/2010 dated 24.03.2010 registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur for offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 I.P.C., along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.