Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Vikram Ahuja vs State And Anr on 23 August, 2018
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3079/2017 Vikram Ahuja S/o Shri Sudarsh Ahuja , By Caste Arora, R/o Malout Punjabat Present House No. 405, First Floor Sec. 4 Panch Kula Haryana

—-Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan

2. Sonal D/o Shri Jagdish Rai Jasuja , B/c Arora, R/o 13-B- Block Sriganganagar.

—-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr Umesh Shrimali Mr Vikram Ahuja – Petitioner Mr Vishal Ahuja -Petitioner’s brother For Respondent(s) : Mr V.S.Rajpurohit – PP Ms Sonal, respondent No.2 present in person HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order 23/08/2018 This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC is filed being aggrieved with the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar (for short ‘the revisional court’ hereinafter), whereby it has dismissed the Revision Petition No.53/2017 filed by the petitioner.

The said revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar (for short ‘the trial court’ hereinafter), whereby it has ordered for (2 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] framing of charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 406 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar against the petitioner and three other persons for the offences punishable under sections 498A406 and 323 IPC, whereby the said complaint was forwarded to the Police Station, Mahila, Sriganganagar and on the basis of said complaint, FIR No.131/2013 was registered against the petitioner and three other persons named in the complaint for the offences punishable undersections 406498A and 323 IPC.

In the complaint, the respondent No.2 has alleged that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 29.11.2008 at Sriganganagar, where her parents gave ornaments and other articles to her in-laws as per their demand. It is further alleged that after her marriage with the petitioner both of them started living at Panch Kula, Haryana, where she was harassed and insulted on account of demand of dowry by petitioner and other persons named in the FIR. Allegations regarding ill-

treatment given to respondent No.2 during her illness as well as of forcing her to get her pregnancy terminated have also been levelled.

Police after thorough investigation have filed charge-sheet against the petitioner alone for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 406 IPC. The police have also concluded that there is no involvement of other (3 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] persons viz. mother, elder brother and wife of the elder brother of the petitioner in commission of any crime.

The trial court took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 498Aand 406 IPC vide order dated 16.01.2017 and simultaneously also rejected the application preferred on behalf of the respondent No.2 under section 190 CrPC with a prayer for taking cognizance against the petitioner’s mother, brother and brother’s wife. Thereafter, the trial court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 406 IPC vide order dated 28.01.2017 against which the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the same has been dismissed.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition seeking following reliefs:

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders dated 28.01.2017 passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar and dated 24.08.2017 passed by learned Addl. Session Judge no.1, Sriganganagar May kindly ordered to be quashed and set aside. The criminal proceedings so initiated against the petitioner may kindly be quashed.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

Before taking into consideration the challenge of the petitioner to the impugned orders, I would like to (4 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] note some facts in brief, which will demonstrate as to how a litigant can attempt to abuse the process of court with audacity. It is in respect of respondent No.2 in particular.

This criminal misc. petition was filed on 07.09.2017 and the Registry fixed the date for listing it in Court on 15.09.2017. On 15.09.2017, respondent No.2 was present in person, she asked for a copy of this petition and this Court ordered for giving a copy of the petition to her and the matter was ordered to be listed on 13.10.2017. On 13.102.2017, the petition was dismissed in default for want of appearance on behalf of the petitioner. On 13.11.2017, this misc. petition was restored on an application preferred on behalf of the petitioner in the presence of respondent No.2 and it was listed on 19.12.2017, however, the same was adjourned for 20.12.2017. On 20.12.2017, counsel for the petitioner prayed that the Court may intervene in the matter for resolving all disputes between the parties. Respondent No.2, who was present in person, did not object to the said submission and, therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to remain present in the Court on the next date so as to explore the possibility of amicable settlement and fixed the matter to be listed on 04.01.2018. On 04.01.2018, in the presence of the parties, the following order was passed:

“04@01@2018 i{kdkjku bl U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns”k fnukad 20-12-2017 ds vuqlj.k esa vkt U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSA v;kph ds u pkgus ds ckotwn ;kph us mls ,oa (5 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] mlds iq= dks ,deq”r fuoZgu HkRrk nsus dk izLrko j[kkA ijUrq] v;kph fdlh Hkh lwjr esa jkthukek djus dk rS;kj ugha gS ,o bl ckr ij n`< gS fd tc rd fookg foPNsn dh fMØh ikfjr ugha gksrh og fdlh izdkj dh e/;LFkrk Lohdkj ugha djsxhA mijksDr rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq,] bl U;k;ky; dh jk; esa i{kdkjku ds e/; jkthukek gksus dh lEHkkouk ugha gSA vr% ;g fofo/k ;kfpdk xzg.kkFkZ lquokbZ gsrq rkjh[k 18-01- 2018 dks lwphc) gksA ;kph ds vf/koDrk leLr nLrkostkr jsdMZ ij izLrqr djsA”

From the above order, it is clear that the respondent No.2 was not ready for compromise till the decree of divorce is passed on a divorce petition filed by her. The matter was then fixed on 18.01.2018. However, a day prior to listing of the matter i.e. on 17.01.2018, respondent No.2 moved an application before this Court, which is quoted verbatim hereunder:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017 (WITH STAY APLICATION NO.3076/2017) Date of Hearing 18.01.2018 APPLR.74/18 Vikram Ahuja V/S State & Anr.

APPLICATION To, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

Humble Applicant/Respondent No.2 begs to submit that on 20.12.2017 the learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed that the court may intervene in the matter for resolving all the disputes between the parties but on the next fate of hearing i.e. 04.01.18 the dispute couldn’t be resolved. The applicant/Respondent No.2 has already filed divorce petition u/s 13(1) HMA and the petitioner has also filed counter claim of divorce at family court sri ganganagar. On conversion of the case U/s 13(A) HMA to case U/s 13(B) HMA with mututal consent the Applicant/Respondent No.2 has apprehension keeping in mind the past cruel conduct of the petitioner, that the petitioner may withdraw his consent for divorce. In such circumstances the Applicant/Respondent No.2 will be no where and will have irrepairable loss.

(6 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] According to Applicant/Respondent No.2 only obtaining the decree of divorce will not resolve all the disputes between the parties. The conditions of Applicant/Respondent No.2 for compromise are as under:-

1. That the minor son of the Applicant/Respondent No.2 has threat to life from the petitioner and his family. In case the petitioner Vikram Ahuja withdraws the case No. 37/2017 at Family Court, Sri Ganganagar U/s 25 Guardian and Wards Act read with section 6 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Actand submits the court order to this Hon’ble Court and also accepts that he will have no right to the custody, guardianship, visitation rights and any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh and the sole custody and guardianship of the minor child Shivansh shall vest in the applicant Sonal and the petitioner will not do any other claims over the minor child under any circumstances.

2. That in case the petitioner Vikram Ahuja and his brother Vishal withdraw all false criminal and civil cases and agree not to file protest petition in case F.R. is produced in F.I.R filed by the brother of the petitioner against the applicant and her family members and submits the court orders to this Hon’ble court and also ensures the Hon’ble court that no other cases/F.I.R have been filed by the petitioner and his family members and also agrees that he and his family will not file any litigation, any complaint or any other application before any authority/court/forum in this regard in future on the Applicant/Respondent No.2 and her family members.

3. That in case after the completion of conditions in above mentioned paragraph no.1 and 2, the petitioner and Applicant/ Respondent no.2 gets decree of divorce with mutual consent after getting the cooling period of 6 months waived off and submits the decree of divorce to this Hon’ble Court.

In case all the above 3 conditions are fulfiled then the Applicant/Respondent No.2 will not demand maintainance for herself and her son.

Date 16.01.2018 Applicant/Respondent No.2″

On 18.01.2018, a copy of the above referred application was provided to the counsel for the petitioner, he prayed for some time to take instructions and the matter was fixed to be listed on 15.02.2018. On (7 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] 15.02.2018, the respondent No.2 again moved a revised application, which is reproduced as under:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017 (WITH STAY APPLICATION NO.3076/2017) Date of Hearing 15.02.2018 Vikram Ahuja V/S State & Anr.

REVISED APPLICATION APPLR.177/18 To, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

Humble applicant/Respondent No.2 begs to submit that the applicant had submitted an application in the Hon’ble High Court dt. 16.01.2018. The revised application in the same context on conditions of compromise is as under :-

1. Custody/Guardianship/VisitationRights :

i) That the minor son Shivansh of the Applicant/Respondent No.2 has threat to life from the petitioner and his family. The minor son Shivansh has been in the custody and guardianship of the Applicant/Respondent No.2 since his birth in 2010 while the Present Petitioner has abused and neglected the minor son.

ii) That the Hon’ble High Court is requested to grant the permanent sole custody & guardianship to the Applicant/Respondent No.2 Sonal

iii) That the present petitioner leaves the visitation rights and any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh and will not do any claims over the minor child Shivansh under any circumstances.

2. Cases:

i. FIR filed through relative of present petitioner at Sriganganagar That the present petitioner made his relative (elder brother) file FIR no.393/17, Sadar Thana, Sriganganagar on applicant/ Respondent no.2 and her parents.

(8 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] Vishal Ahuja vs. Sonal Jasuja and other U/s 384, 417, 420, 467, 471, 120-B in November, 2017. The FIR was filed with an ill intention to get the Applicant/Respondent no.2 and her senior citizen parents arrested and imprisoned leaving the minor son behind but the police upon investigation found the allegations to be false and submitted FR in the ACJM-1 Court, Sriganganagar.

ii. Complaint filed through relative of present petitioner at Punjab That the present petitioner has made his relative (elder brother) file complaint at Malout (Punjab) Complaint No. 82/17 Vishal Kumar vs. Sonal Ahuja U/s 177, 181, 182, 465, 467, 468, 471, 499, 500 IPC at the Court of Ld. Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout in which next date of hearing is 21.02.2018.

iii. Complaint by present petitioner at CJM Court, Sriganganagar That the present petitioner has filed a false complaint (complaint No.218/17) in CJM Court, Sriganganagar Vikram Ahuja vs. Sonal U/s 189, 506 IPC.

It cannot be denied that the present petitioner may harass the Applicant/Respondent No.2 and her family even after the compromise by continuing with the criminal cases and FIR’s that are not in the knowledge of Applicant/Respondent no.2 and also by filing new one’s through his friends and relative so the Hon’ble High Court is requested to bound the present petitioner to withdraw /compromise and make his relatives and friends also withdraw /compromise in all the cases/complaints/FIR’s against the Applicant/Respondent No.2 and her family members and submits the court orders to the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court is also requested to bound the present petitioner so as to not to make his elder brother proceed in filling protest petition in FR at ACJM-1 Court, Sriganganagar and also bound the present petitioner that he will neither himself file nor file through his relatives and friends new litigation, cases, FIR’s before any authority/court/forum in this regard in future on applicant/Respondent No.2 and her family members.

3. Divorce:

i. That according to the order sheet of the Hon’ble High Court dated 04.01.2018 (attachment-1) there was no possibility of compromise but the present petitioner gave a false statement in the Family Court, Sriganganagar stating that the Applicant/Respondent No.2 had given assurance of doing compromise and filing application U/s 13-B HMA in the lower Court which is clear from order sheet dt. 08.01.2018 (attachment-2) thus, the present petitioner is not even being true to the Hon’ble Courts, so he is not trustable to cooperate in the grant of decree of divorce.

(9 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] ii. That the Applicant/Respondent no.2 had filed divorce petition U/s 13(1) HMA at Family Court, Sriganganagar in 2015. The present petitioner had filed counter claim of divorce. Later the Applicant/Respondent no.2 had filed an application on 02.12.2016 requesting the Family Court, Sriganganagar to grant divorce as both the parties had asked for divorce. The Family Court, Sriganganagar dismissed the said application vide order dt. 10.01.2017. The present petitioner filed another application on 08.01.2018 stating “mijksDr izdj.k esa i{kdkjku dks fookg foPNsn dh fMdzh ikfjr dh tkos” i.e., in case of contested divorce CM 610/2015 but according to the order sheet dated 08.01.2018 (attachment-3) of the Family Court, Sriganganagar, the present petitioner mentioned that he is ready for mutual consent divorce for which he has given the above mentioned application U/s 151 C.P.C thus, the present petitioner is not trustable. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court is requested to waive off cooling period and grant the decree of divorce.

In case all the above conditions are fulfilled then the Applicant/ Respondent No.2 will not demand maintenance for herself and her minor son. In case the conditions are not fulfilled then there will not be possibility of compromise between the parties. Considering the request of the present petitioner for resolving all the disputes between the parties and the conditions mentioned above, the Hon’ble High Court is requested to grant divorce to the parties, sole custody and guardianship of the minor child Shivansh to the Applicant/ Respondent No.2 Sonal, no visitation rights and any other right with respect to minor child Shivansh to the present petitioner and bound the present petitioner from doing any claims over the minor child Shivansh under any circumstances, bound the present petitioner to himself withdraw/compromise and also get cases, FIR’s withdrawn/ compromised by his relatives/friends and also bound not to file and not to make his relatives and friends file new cases and FIR’s on Applicant/Respondent no.2 and her family members. The Applicant/Respondent no.2 will be greatly obliged.

Attachments

1. Web copy of order dt. 04.01.2018 of the Hon’ble High Court

2. Certified copy of Order Sheet of Family Court, Sriganganagar dt. 08.01.2018.

3. Certified copy of application of present petitioner dt.

08.01.2018.

Date: 14.02.2018 Humble Applicant/Respondent no.2 Sd/-

Sonal”

                          (10 of 43)              [CRLMP-3079/2017]


            On   15.02.2018,     counsel   for    the   petitioner

prayed for some time and the matter was fixed for 15.03.2018, however, on 14.03.2018, the respondent No.2 moved an application requesting to direct the petitioner to submit the condition of compromise in writing. The application dated 14.03.2018 is reproduced hereunder:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CRL. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017 (With Stay Application No.3076/2017) Date of Hearing 15.03.2018 Vikram V/S State & Anr.

Application for request for taking conditions of compromise in writing APPLR.252/18 To, The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his other companion Judges of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS ;

Humble Applicant/Respondent No.2 begs to submit that:-

1. That on 15th Feb. 2018 the present petitioner had proposed to file reply to the interlocutory application submitted by the respondent no.2.

2. That the humble applicant/respondents no.2 had given consolidated conditions of compromise in writing to the Hon’ble High Court on 15.02.2018 for which the present petitioner had prayed for time.

It is a humble request to the Hon’ble High court to take the conditions of compromise of the present petitioner in writing only as the respondent no.2 does not have faith on the present petitioner. The respondent no.2 shall be greatly obliged.

Date: 14.03.2018 Humble Applicant/Respondent No.2 Sd/-

(SONAL)”

(11 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] On 15.03.2018, the matter was ordered to be listed on 09.04.2018. On 09.04.2018, after hearing counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2, this Court stayed the proceedings pending against the petitioner in Criminal Case No.12/2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar and fixed the matter to be listed on 09.05.2018.

However, on 09.04.2018 itself, t he respondent No.2 filed another application, which is reproduced hereunder:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR APPLR.316/18 S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017 (With Stay APLICATION NO.3076/2017) Date of Hearing 09.04.2018 Vikram V/S State & Anr.

Application for request for taking conditions of compromise & Date wise action plan from the Present Petitioner To, The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his other companion Judges of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS ;

Humble Applicant/Respondent no.2 begs to submit that:-

1. That a request for resolving all the disputes between the parties was made on behalf of the Present Petitioner on 20.12.2017.

2. That the Present Petitioner has not filed his conditions of compromise and a detailed action plan as to how the dispute can be resolved in the Hon’ble High Court uptill now.

3. That the Respondent No.2 has the following cases in her knowledge that have been filed by the Present Petitioner & the false cases that Present (12 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] Petitioner has made his brother Vishal Ahuja file on Respondent no.2 & even her parents –

Filing            U/s              Title   Court
1. complaint 177,           181,   Vishal Court of Ld. Sub divisional
no.82/17     182,           465,   Ahuja Judicial Magistrate Malout
             467,           468,   Vs.    (Punjab)
             471,           499,   Sonal
             500 IPC               Ahuja
2. FIR No.        384,    417,     Vishal ACJM-1 Court Sriganganagar
393/17 Sadar      420,    467,     Ahuja
Thana             468,    471,     Vs.
Sriganganaga      120 B IPC        Sonal
r, Case No.                        Jasuja
27/18, FR no.                      &
81/18                              Other
                                   s

3. Complaint 189, 506 IPC Vikra CJm Court Sriganganagar No.218/17 m Ahuja Vs.

                          Sonal
4. CM 37/17       25 Guardian      Vikra Family Court Sriganganagar
                  & Wards act      m
                  read     with    Ahuja
                  section     6    Vs.
                  Hindu            Sonal
                  Minority    &
                  Guardianship
                  Act
5. CM 610/15 Counter               Sonal Family Court Sriganganagar
             Claim     of          vs.
             divorce U/s           Vikra
             13(1) HMA             m
                                   Ahuja


4. That it is requested that the Present Petitioner be directed to first of all inform the Hon’ble Court about his date-wise action plan about surrendering sole custody, guardianship and visitation rights of minor child Shivansh, any other rights and claims with respect to minor child Shivansh under all circumstances.

5. That the complaint no. 82/17 at Ld. sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout (Punjab) is out of jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court so an action plan of the Present Petitioner for getting the complaint withdrawn from his brother Vishal Ahuja and filing the certified copy of the court order to this Hon’ble Court is to be mentioned by the Present Petitioner further affidavit from the brother of the Present Petitioner Vishal Ahuja is required regarding mentioning his action plan of compromising/withdrawing/getting quashed all (13 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] cases/complaints/FIRs against the Respondent no.2 & her family members & a commitment about not filing any cases/ complaints/ FIRs on Respondent No.2 and her family members in future.

6. That it is humble request that the Present Petitioner be directed to give an affidavit to this Hon’ble Court about the complete list of cases, complaints & FiRs filed by the Present Petitioner, his relatives & friends on the Respondent No.2 & her family Members and detailed date wise action plan to withdraw/compromise/get/ FIRs quashed. The Present Petitioner also needs to disclose his steps about his commitment for not filing & not making his relative & friends file any new cases/complaints/FIRs against the Respondent No.2 & her family members.

7. That after the action plan of Custody, Guardianship, Visitation Rights etc. issues and after the action plan for withdrawal of cases, FIRs and complaints against the Respondent No.2 & her family members, finally action plan to cooperate for divorce without cooling period is to be disclosed & the date of submitting the decree of Divorce to this Hon’ble Court is to be mentioned.

It is humble request in the interest of justice to the Hon’ble High Court to keep the criminal misc. petition pending and take the date-wise action plan for compromising form the Present Petitioner in writing in the absence of which any compromise is not possible. It is also requested that the next date of hearing be given after a month as the Respondent No.2 needs to come along with her father/mother from Sriganganagar, the remote corner of Rajasthan. Respondent No.2 shall be greatly obliged.

Attachment :

1. Certified Copy of Final Report in false FIR lodged by the brother of the Present Petitioner.

Date: 9.04.2018 HUMBLE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 Sd/-

(SONAL)”

Pursuant to the order dated 09.04.2018, the matter was listed on 09.05.2018 and on that date, respondent No.2 filed her written arguments in detail.

However, the case was adjourned for 09.07.2018.

                           (14 of 43)                [CRLMP-3079/2017]


           In     the     meantime,        the     Family     Court,

Sriganganagar      granted     decree      of     divorce   to    the

respondent      No.2    vide   judgment         dated   21.04.2018.

Thereafter on 12.06.2018, the petitioner filed reply to the application and revised application filed by respondent No.2. The same is quoted as under:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.3079/17 PETITIONER RESPONDENT Vikram Ahuja v/s State of Rajasthan & anr Reply to the application/consent for conditions mentioned in application of respondent no.2 (complainant) & revised application TO, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS OTHER COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS;

On behalf of humble petitioner it is most respectfully submitted as under:-

1. That the petitioner is ready to fulfill the first condition, and ready to withdraw the case no.37/2017 at Family Court Sriganganagar u/s 25 Guardian & Wards Act r/w s. 6 Hindu minority and Guardianship Act and ready to submit the court’s order and also accepts that the petitioner will have no right to the custody, Guardianships, Visitation right and any other right with respect to his minor child Shivansh & sole custody and guardianship of minor Shivansh shall vest in the respondent no.2 Sonal & petitioner will not do any other claim over the minor child under any circumstances & petitioner also want to assure that there was no former threat to life to respondent no.2 & minor Son from petitioner and his family.

2. That the petitioner is ready to fulfill the second condition mentioned in the application ready that the petitioner Vikram Ahuja and his brother Vishal Ahuja will withdraw all criminal & civil cases and agree that they will not file (15 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] protest petition in case F.R.is produced in F.I.R filed by the brother of the petitioner against the applicant respondent no.2 and her family members and submit the court’s order to this Hon’ble court and also ensures that no other cases/FIR have been filed by the petitioner and his family members and also agree that the petitioner and his family will not file any litigation, any complaint or any other application before any authority/court/forum in this regard in future on the Applicant/Respondent no.2 and her family members.& the petitioner further want to assure that no false case was previously filed and in future will not be filed.

3. That the petitioner is already consented to complete the conditions mention in the paragraph no.1 & 2 of the application of the respondent no.2 and he was ready to get divorce with mutual consent and he was ready to submit the decree of divorce to this Hon’ble court, but in the change in circumstances it is noteworthy to mention here that learned Family court Sriganganagar has already passed the decree of Divorce while allowing the application of the respondent Sonal & the petitioner undertakes that he will not challenge it further if the all disputes & cases settled mutually.

REPLY TO THE REVISED APPLICATION Humble petitioner respectfully submits paragraph wise reply to the revised application as under:

1.(i) That since the all matters are going to be amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent no.2, the petitioner & his family himself do not want to create any controversy regarding truthfulness of any former fact & do not want to comment anything which can unpleasant to the respondent no.2.

(ii) That since the all matters are going to be amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent no.2, the petitioner is ready to fulfill first condition and agrees in case Hon’ble court grants permanent sole custody & guardianship of his minor son Shivansh to the applicant/Respondent no.2 sonal.

(iii) That since the all matters are going to be amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent no.2, the present petitioner ready to leave the visitation rights and any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh and will not do any claim over the minor child Shivansh under any circumstances.

(16 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

2. That since the all matters are going to be amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent no.2, all the cases mentioned in sub-para (i),(ii),(iii) will be withdrawn/compromised & ensure that the elder brother of the petitioner will not proceed in filling protest.

3. That since the all matters are going to be amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent no.2 without going in to the dispute regarding truthfulness of the former facts, it is noteworthy to mention here that learned Family court Sriganganagar has already passed the decree of Divorce while allowing the application of the respondent Sonal & the petitioner undertakes that he will not challenge it further if the all disputes & cases settled mutually.

Since sub-para is repetition of the conditions mentioned in application as well as revised application filed by the respondent no.2, without averting anything new petitioner & his family including his brother, is ready to settle amicably all the matters and ready and willing to fulfill all the condition mentioned in application and revised application.

Sd-

Humble petitioner”

Thereafter on 03.07.2018, the respondent No.2 filed written arguments, wherein it is asserted that she is ready to compromise the matter on certain conditions. The written arguments filed by respondent No.2 are reproduced hereunder:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017 (With Stay APLICATION NO.3076/2017) Date of Hearing 09.07.2018 Vikram Ahuja V/S State & Anr.

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT NO.2 ON REPLY TO APLLICATION OF PRESENT PETITIONER DT.12.06.2018 To, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR.

(17 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

Humble Respondent No.2 begs to submit as under :-

1. That the Present Petitioner has filed reply to the application of respondent No.2 on conditions of compromise and her revised application but he has not filed any reply to the application of respondent No.2 (APPLR No.316/2018) for mentioning date wise action plan for compromise which depicts that the Present Petitioner does not have intention of practically fulfilling the conditions of compromise.

2. That the promises made by the Present Petitioner in his reply dated 12.06.2018 are merely promises looking at the past conduct of the Present Petitioner. The promises are not acceptable and the respondent No.2 is not ready for any compromise on the basis of mere promises.

3. That for arriving at a compromise the Present Petitioner needs to withdraw the custody case No.37/2017 at family court, Sriganganagar and submit the certified copy of court order to this Hon’ble Court and also needs to file an affidavit to this Hon’ble Court stating that the present petitioner and his family members will have no right to the custody, guardianship and visitation rights & any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh and the permanent sole custody and guardianship of the minor child Shivansh shall vest in the Respondent No.2 Sonal. The petitioner & his family will not do any other claims/demand over the minor child under any circumstances in future also.

4. That the Present Petitioner himself and his brother Vishal Ahuja need to withdraw all the criminal and civil cases, complaints FIR filed against the Respondent No. 2 nd her family members and submit the certified copies of such Court orders to this Hon’ble Court. They need to withdraw the following Cases, Complaints-

Filings                Title                Court          Next    Date      of
                                                           Hearing
Complaint              Vikram Ahuja vs. CJM         Court, 07.07.2018
No.218/2017            Sonal            Sriganganagar
Divorce       appeal                                       Till 21.07.2018
period
Complaint              Vishal Kumar vs. Ld. Sub. Divisional 23.07.2018
no.82/2017             Sonal Ahuja      Judicial Magistrate,
                                        Malout Punjab
CM 37/17               Vikarm Ahuja vs. Family      Court, 26.07.2018
                       Sonal            Sriganganagar

F.R. No.81/2018 in Vishal Ahuja vs. ACJM 1 Court, 03.08.2018 Case no. 27/2018 Sonal jasuja and Sriganganagar (FIR No.393/2017 others Sadar Thana, Sriganganagar) Any other cases by (18 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] the Present Petitioner and his Family Members on the respondent No.2 and her family members

5. That the Present Petitioner needs to file an affidavit himself and also get an affidavit filed from his brother Vishal Ahuja stating that they have withdrawn all the cases against the respondent No.2 and her family members and No other cases, FIR, Coplaints have been filed by the Present Petitioner and his family members on Respondent No.2 and her family members and The Present Petitioner and his family members will not file new litigation, complaint or any other application before any authority/ Court/ Forum in this regard in future on the Respondent No. 2 and her family members. The brother of Present Petitioner also needs to mention in the affidavit that he will not file Protest Petition in FR No.81/18, case No. 27/18 (FIR No. 393/17) at ACJM-1, Court Sriganganagar. The certified copy of ordersheet of ACJM-1, Sriganganagar mentioning that Shri Vishal Ahuja will file Protest Petition on 03-08-2018 is Attachment-1.

6. That the Present Petitioner needs to submit an affidavit to this Hon’ble Court stating that the Present Petitioner will not challenge/file appeal against the decree of divorce granted by the family court Sriganganagar.

7. That the compromise will be done in writing after execution of all the terms of compromise and not just on the basis of promises.

8. That in the absence of fulfillments of all the conditions of compromise of the respondent No.2, the harrassed respondent No.2 is not ready for any compromise.

9. That since the Present Petitioner is not practically withdrawing the cases etc. the possibility of the Present Petitioner having malified intensions and getting the FIR under Section 498A406 IPC Quashed in the name of Compromise cannot be denied.

It is a Humble request that if the Present Petitioner and his brother do not actually fulfill all the conditions of compromise then there is no scope for compromise. Mere commitments and filing of affidavit by the Present Petitioner with commitments on behalf of his brother does not lead to any compromise. It is to be noted that the Present Petitioner himself has not given affidavit of withdrawing cases filed by himself instead he has given affidavit in reference to the cases filed by the brother. It shows that the Present Petitioner has not come with clean hand. It is thus clear that in such conditions compromise is not possible. If the Present Petitioner does not really fulfill the conditions of compromise the (19 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] respondent No.2 is not ready for compromise. In that condition it is a humble request that written arguments of Respondent No.2 (Inward No.5734/18), documents (Inward No.14500/17), certified copies (Inward No.5720/18) along with citations (Attachment No.3, 4, 5 & 6) & wedding card (Attachment No.2) justifying the jurisdiction of the court at Sriganganagar be taken into consideration & the present CrLMP No. 3079/17 filed by the Present Petitioner kindly be dismissed and the trial court(CJM Court Sriganganagar) be directed to do speedy trial and impart justice to the harrased Respondent No.2 who had filed the case u/s 498A, 406 IPCmore than 5 years ago.

Date-02.07.2018 Humble Applicant/Respondent No.2 Sd/-

(Sonal) R/o 13-B Block Sriganganagar Attachments-

1. Certified copy of order sheet dt.18.05.2018 of ACJM-

Court

2. Wedding Card

3. Citation Bharat Kale and Anr. vs. State of AP (Appeal) Criminal 1251 to 2003 of Supreme Court of India)

4. Citation Vanka Radhamanohari (Smt.) Vs. Vanka Venkate Reddy & Ors. On 20.04.1993.

5. Citation Sunita Kumari Kashyap vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (Crl Appeal No.917/2011 of Supreme Court of India).

6. Citation Harikesh Dhanak and Anr. vs. state of Rajasthan and Anr.”

On 09.07.2018, when the matter was listed before the Court, the following order was passed:

“09/07/2018 The respondent No.2, present in person before this Court has submitted reply to the application dated 12.6.2018 filed on behalf of the petitioner in this criminal misc. petition.

The petitioner along with his brother Mr.Vishal Ahuja present in person before this Court undertake that the cases instituted against the respondent No.2 and her family members on behalf of the petitioner, (20 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] his brother and their any other relative either in the State of Rajasthan or in the State of Punjab will be withdrawn by the next date of hearing.

Taking into consideration, the undertaking given by the petitioner and his brother Mr.Vishal Ahuja, this Court deems it appropriate to list this matter on 9th August, 2018.

On that day, the petitioner and his brother Mr.Vishal Ahuja may appear in person before this Court and produce certified copy of the orders withdrawing Complaint No.82/2017 pending in the court of CJM, Malout, Punjab; the application No.37/2017 pending in the Family Court, Sri Ganganagar; order of withdrawal of Protest Petition preferred by them being aggrieved with the FR No.81/2018, arising out of FIR No.393/2017 of Police Station Sadar Thana, Sri Ganganagar and order of withdrawal of Complaint No.218/2017 filed by them in the Court of CJM, Sri Ganganagar.

Let this matter be listed on 9th August, 2018. Interim order, if any, to continue till the next date.”

Again on 09.07.2018, the respondent No.2 filed written arguments in continuation of earlier written arguments, which are reproduced verbatim hereunder:

“WRITTEN ARGUMENTS IN CONTINUATION TO THE ONES SUBMITTED ON REPLY TO APPLICATION OF PRESENT PETITIONER DT.12.06.2018 To, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

Humble Respondent No.2 in continuation to her written arguments filed on 02.07.2018 submits as under-

(21 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

1. That for arriving at a compromise the Present Petitioner needs to withdraw the custody case No.37/2017 at family court, Sriganganagar and submit the certified copy of court order to this Hon’ble Court and also needs to file an affidavit to this Hon’ble Court stating that the present petitioner and his family members will have no right to the custody, guardianship and visitation rights & any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh and the permanent sole custody and guardianship of the minor chold Shivansh shall vest in the Respondent No.2 Sonal. The petitioner & his family will not do any other claims / demand over the minor child under any circumstances in future also. That the present petitioner on 12.06.2018 has mentioned in last line of para 1 of his reply to the application that there was no former threat to life of Respondent No.2 and minor son from the petitioner and his family members. The respondent no.2 wants to clarify that the Respondent No.2 has mentioned the facts of immense cruelty on her and her minor child Shivansh in FIR No.131/2013, Mahila Thana Sriganganagar and has stated about the attempts of abortion and murder on the Respondent No.2 and her minor child Shivansh by the present petitioner and his family members. The police upon thorough investigation of the said FIR filed challan against the present petitioner in the Hon’ble CJM Court Sriganganagar. The CJM Court Sriganganagar to cognizance against the presentpetitioner and framed charges against him. The respondent no.2 filed divorce petition U/s 13(1) HMA on the grounds of cruelty and desertion in the family court Sriganganagar. The Court granted divorce allowing the application of Respondent No.2 Sonal.

2. That the present Petitioner himself and his brother Vishal Ahuja need to withdraw all the criminal and civil cases, complaints, FIR filed against the Respondent No.2 and her family members and submit the certified copies of such Court orders to this Hon’ble Court. They need to withdraw the following Cases, Complaints on following dates-

Withdraws    Vishal Kumar vs. Sonal Ld.Sub.divisional 23.07.2018
complaint    Ahuja                  Judicial Magistrate,
no.82/2017                          Malout Punjab
Withdraw CM Vikaram Ahuja vs. Sonal Family       Court 26.07.2018
37/2017 and                         Sriganganagar
submits court
orders    and
affidavit  to
this Hon'ble
court on next
date       of
hearing

Accepts F.R. Vishal Ahuja vs. Sonal ACJM 1 Court 03.08.2018 No.81/2018 in Jasuja and others Sriganganagar case no.27/2018 (FIR No.393/17 (22 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] Sadar Thana, Sriganganagar Withdraws Vikram Ahuja vs. Sonal CJM Court 26.09.2018 complaint Sriganganagar no.218/2017 Does not on next date of challenge/ file hearing at Hon’ble appeal again High Court decree of divorce & give the affidavit Withdraws Files Certified copy any other of Court Orders cases by the and affidavits On Present next Date of petitioner and hearing at High his Family Court Members on the respondent No.2 and her family members Withdraws all On next Date of complaints, hearing at High FIR by self Court and bother and submit certified copy of court orders and affidavits That the Present Petitioner needs to file an affidavit himself and also get an affidavit filed from his brother Vishal Ahuja stating that they have withdrawn all the cases against the respondent No.2 and her family members and no other cases, FIR complaints have been filed by the Present Petitioner and his family members on Respondent No.2 and her family members and if filed the certified copies after withdrawal/Compromise are submitted to this Hon’ble Court. The Present Petitioner and his family members has not filed new litigation, complaint or any other application before any authority/Court/Forum in this regard in future on the Respondent No.2 and her family members. The brother of Present Petitioner also needs to mention in the affidavit that he will not file Protest Petition in FR No. 81/18, case No. 27/18 (FIR No. 393/17) at ACJM-1 Court Sriganganagar & accepted the F.R. The certified copy of ordersheet of ACJM-1, Sriganganagar needs to be submitted to this Hon’ble Court.

That the present petitioner has mentioned in last line of para 2 that no false case was previously filed and in future will not be filed but the fact is that the present petitioner himself filed false case and got filed false FIR and complaint through his brother Vishal Ahuja. The police upon investigation of FIR No. 393/2017, Sadar (23 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] Thana Sriganganagar found the FIR to be false and had put FR in ACJM -1 court Sriganganagar. (Certified Copy of FR is present in court file of this Hon’ble Court. The present petitioner has committed for not filing false case in future but the respondent No. 2 looks for commitment that the present petitioner and his family members will not file any cases in future on Respondent No.2 and her family members.

3. That the Present Petitioner needs to submit an affidavit to this Hon’ble Court stating that the Present Petitioner has not challenged and filed appeal against the decree of divorce granted by the family court Sriganganagar. The present petitioner has mentioned in the last line of para 3 that he will not challenge the decree of divorce if all the disputes and cases settled mutually. On the other hand the present petitioner mentiones that he was ready to get divorce with mutual consent and he was ready to submit the decree of divorce the this Hon’ble court. In such circumstances he is not expected to file an appeal against the decree of divorce specially when the Respondent No. 2 has not demanded any maintenance for herself and her minor child.

4. That in para 1 (ii) if the reply of revise application the present petitioner has mentioned that the present petitioner agrees in case Hon’ble court grants permanent sole custody and guardianship of minor son Shivansh to the Respondent No. 2 Sonal which means that the present petitioner is not ready to withdraw the custody case CM 37/2017 at Family Court Sriganganagar inspite of the facts that the minor child Shivansh has threat to life from the present petitioner and his family members in order to come to a compromise the present petitioner needs to leave the custody guardianship and visitation rights and any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh. So that permanent sole custody and guardianship of minor child Shivansh shall vest in Respondent No. 2 Sonal with whom child lives since his birth in 2010 after desertion of the Respondent No. 2 by the present petitioner and the present petitioner has not seen the minor child from last 8 years. The present petitioner also needs to give and affidavit statyting that he and his family members will not do any other claims over the child under any circumstances in future.

5. That further in para 1 (iii) the present petitioner has mentioned that, “The present petitioner ready to leave the visitation rights and any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh.” The verb is is missing in the sentence so it means that the present petitioner still not ready to leave the visitation right and any other rights with respect to the minor child. The present petitioner in order to compromise needs to withdraw the custody case CM 37/2017 at Family Court Sriganganagar and submits certified copy of court orders of family court Sriganganagar to this Hon’ble Court alongwith an (24 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] affidavit mentioning the conditions in para 1 of the present written arguments of Respondent No.2.

6. That the present petitioner has mentioned that the case is mentioned in the sub para (i),(ii) and (iii) by the Respondent No.2 will be withdrawn/ compromise but they are actually not withdrawal till date and any compromise will not only be possible after the present petitioner himself compromise/ withdraws the cases and complaints and also gets the cases and complaints withdrawn from his brother. In the absence of actual withdrawal / compromise of the case which are filed in sections stating Non Compoundable Offences no compromise is possible.

The present petitioner has not replied to the last sub para of para 2 of the revised application of Respondent No.2 in which there is mention that the present petitioner may harass the Respondent no.2 and her family member even after the compromise by continuing with the criminal cases and FIRs that are not in the knowledge of Respondent No.2 and also by filing new case through his friends and relatives. The present petitioner needs to withdraw and get withdrawn the cases filed and also file an affidavit himself and get filed affidavit from his brother stating that he and his family members have withdrawn all cases and will not file any cases in future on Respondent No.2 and her family members. The present petitioner has further mentioned in para 2 of ensuring that the elder brother of the petitioner will not proceed in filing protest but the order sheet dated 18.05.2018 of ACJM 1 court shows that the present petitioner will filed protest petitioner on 03.08.2018 in case Vishal Ahuja Vs Sonal Jasuja and Ors. U/s 384, 417, 420, 467, 471, 120-B I.P.C.

Likewise the hearing in complaint No.82/2017 Vishal Kumar Vs Sonal Ahuja U/s 177, 181, 182, 465, 467, 468, 471, 499, 500 I.P.C. at the court of Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout is 23.07.2018. No compromise is possible when the present petitioner and his brother continue the proceedings in the above mentioned cases in which the alligations levied are the same in the case at ACJM 1 court Sriganganagar in which police has put FR No.81/2018. The present petitioner is giving commitment and affidavit on behalf of his brother but his commitments do not hold any good on behalf of some one else the complainant Vishal Ahuja himself need to withdraw / compromise in the cases filed by him. It is to be noted that the present petitioner himself has not made any commitment for withdrawing cases filed by him including case No. 218/2017 at CJM Court Sriganganagar and case No. 37/2017 at Family Court Sriganganagar and not filing appeal against the decree of divorce. The compromise can only be done when the present petitioner come to this Hon’ble court after executing the conditions of compromise with the required court orders and affidavit. The present petitioner in last para mentioned that the petitioner himself and his family (25 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] including his brother is ready and willing to fulfill all the conditions mentioned in the application and revised application so he and his family members need to execute all conditions of compromise practically. The compromise can not be arrived at by mere filing of reply to application of Respondent No.2 and by giving affidavit. The conditions of compromise need to be actually fulfilled, court orders after withdrawing cases to be submitted to this Hon’ble court and filing of following affidavits needs to be done.

The affidavit filed by present petitioner must contain

1. Affidavit in reference to leaving custody, guardianship and visitation rights, giving sole permanent custody of minor child Shivansh to Respondent No.2 Sonal and doing no future claims over minor child Shivansh by the present petitioner and his family members under any circumstances.

2. Affidavit that he has withdrawn all civil and criminal cases against the Respondent No.2 and her family members and he and his family members will not filed any litigation, FIR, case, and complaint against the Respondent No.2 and her family members in future.

3. Affidavit that he has not filed appeal against the decree of divorce.

The brother of present petitioner Vishal Ahuja need to file

1. Affidavit stating that he has withdrawn / compromised all cases, complaints, FIR etc. against the respondent No.2 and her family members and he will not fill any case, complaints, FIR in future on respondent No. 2 and her family members.

It is the humble request that since the matrimonial disputes have not been settled till now the FIR U/s 498(a), 406 I.P.C. not be quashed unitll the present petitioner and his family members fulfill the conditions of compromise, submits the certified copies of court orders and affidavits of present petitioner and his brother to this Hon’ble court and the compromise is done in writing for this purpose the next date of hearing kindly be given after 26.09.2018, the date at CJM court Sriganganagar so that the cases are actually withdrawn and conditions of compromise fulfilled.

Date-09-07-2018 Sd/-

Humble Applicant/ Respondent No.2″

On 11.07.2018, another application was filed by respondent No.2, which is reproduced hereunder:

(26 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] “IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO. 3079/2017 (WITH STAY APPLICATION NO. 3076/2017) Date of hearing 09.08.2018 Vikram Ahuja V/S State & Anr.

APPLICATION To, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS:

Humble Respondent No. 2 begs to submit as under:

1. That the Respondent No. 2 had submitted her conditions of compromise vide her application dated 16-01-2018, 14-02-2018, 09-04-2018 and written arguments dated 02-07-2018 and 09-07-2018.

2. That the Hon’ble Court on 09-07-2018 directed the present petitioner and his brother to withdraw cases against Respondent No. 2 and her family members.

3. That the respondent no. 2 in her written arguments dated 09-07-2018 had asked for an affidavit to be filed by the present petitioner in this Hon’ble Court stating that the present petitioner and his family members will have no right to the custody, guardianship and visitation rights & any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh and the permanent sole custody and guardianship of the minor child Shivansh shall vest in the Respondent No. 2 Sonal. The petitioner & his family will not do any claim/ demand over the minor child under any circumstance in future also.

4. That the present petitioner is required to file an affidavit himself and also get an affidavit filed from his brother Vishal Ahuja stating that they have withdrawn all the cases against the Respondent No. 2 and her family members and No other cases, FIR, complaints have been filed by the Present Petitioner and his family members on Respondent No. 2 and her family members and The Present Petitioner and his family members will not file new litigation, complaint or any other application before any authority/Court/ Forum in this regard in future on the Respondent No. 2 and her family members.

5. That the present petitioner need to submit an affidavit to this Hon’ble Court stating that the Present Petitioner will not challenge/file appeal against the decree of divorce granted by the family court Sriganganagar on dated 21- 04-2018 in case No. CM610/15.

(27 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

6. That the present petitioner has mentioned in tokc izkFkZuk i= on 07-06-2018 in family court Sriganganagar in the first line of second page “izkFkhZ }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ds le{k vizkFkhZ;k }kjk j[ks x;s jkthukek ds pkj izLrkoksa dks v{kj’k% Lohdkj fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ;k dh gj “krZ ekuus dks igys Hkh rS;kj Fkk vkSj vkt Hkh rS;kj gS ” The present petitioner in his reply to Hon’ble High Court dated 12-06-2018 has mentioned is the last para that he is ready to settle amicably all the matters and ready and willing to fulfill all the condition mentioned in application and revised application. According to the present petitioner he is ready to fulfill the conditions of compromise but the Hon’ble Court only directed the present petitioner to withdraw the cases and hence all the condition of respondent no.2 do not get fulfilled by the order dated 09-07-2018.

7. That in the case the entire matrimonial dispute is not settled the respondent no. 2, her minor Son and her family members will have irreparable loss.

It is a humble requested that the present petitioner be directed to fulfill all the conditions of compromise of respondent no. 2. In case the present does not fulfill all the condition of compromise of respondent no. 2, the respondent No. 2 is not ready for any compromise. In the absence of settlement of entire matrimonial dispute the quashing of FIR under section 498A406 IPC is requested not to be done and it is requested that the written arguments of respondent No. 2(Inward No. 5734/18), documents (Inward No. 14500/17), Certified copies (Inward No. 5720/18) , along with citations and wedding card be taken into consideration and present Crlmp No. 3079/17, kindly be dismissed and trial court be directed to do speedy trial and impart justice the respondent No.2.

Date: 10-07-2018 Humble Applicant/ Respondent No.2 Sd/-

(Sonal) Attachments-

1. Certified copy of tokc izkFkZuk i= dt. 07-06-2018 of Family Court, Shriganganagar”

Thereafter again on 23.07.2018, written arguments were filed by the respondent No.2, which are reproduced hereunder:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017 (WITH STAY APLICATION NO.3076/2017) (28 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] Date of Hearing 23.07.2018 Vikram Ahuja V/S State & Ant.

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON APLLICATION DT.10.07.2018 To, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

Humble Respondent No.02 begs to submit the written arguments as under :-

1. That the Hon’ble High Court had passed order dt.9/7/18 of which the Respondent No.2 got certified copy on the next date on 10/7/18 in which the Hon’ble Court had directed the Present Petition to withdraw the cases only and there were no directions in reference to the remaining conditions of compromise.

2. That to get the inclusion of directions for remaining conditions of compromise in order of Hon’ble High Court the Respondent No.2 immediately filed an application on the very day on 10/7/18, gave copy to the Present Petitioner through his learned counsel by Registered Post. The receipt of which was filed in the Hon’ble Court.

3. That the Hon’ble High Court is requested to direct the Present Petitioner and his brother Vishal Ahuja to comply with all the conditions of compromise as the Present Petitioner has given consent in the reply submitted by the Present Petitioner on 12/6/18 in the Hon’ble High Court.

4. That the Respondent No.2 being highly educated, financially well to do and competent has never claimed and is not willing to take any alimony or maintenance from the Present Petitioner for self and for her minor child. The Respondent No.2 has mentioned about not demanding maintenance for herself and her minor child in her application (Reg.No.74/2018, Reg. Date 17.01.2018)

5. That the Present Petitioner has not given affidavit regarding – I) expressing his acceptance of judgment and decree of divorce granted by Family Court, Sri Ganganagar on 21.4.2018 ii) surrendering custody, guardianship and visitation rights and any other right with respect to the minor child Sivansh and giving the permanent sole custody and guardianship of the minor child Shivansh to the Respondent No.2 Sonal and writing that the Petitioner and his family members will not do any claim/demand over the minor child under any circumstances whatsoever it may be in future also. Although the Present Petitioner has already given consent in this regard for withdrawing the custody case at Family Court, Sriganganagar and having no right to custody, (29 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] guardianship and visitation rights and any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh shall vest in respondent No.02 Sonal & petitioner will not do any other claim over the minor child under any circumstances in his reply dated 12.06.2018 filed in this Hon’ble Court.

iii) affidavit of Present Petitioner and his brother Vishal Ahuja stating that there are no more cases pending on Respondent No.2 and her family members filed by the Present Petitioner and his family members and consent for not filing and not getting filed new cases, FIR, complaints against the Respondent No.2 and her family members by the Present Petitioner and his family members. Although Consent in this regard has already been given by the Present Petitioner in his reply dt.12/6/2018.

6. That the Present Petitioner had filed an affidavit along with his reply/consent for the conditions of compromise dated 12/6/2018 but the affidavit was filed in respect to withdrawing the cases filed by his brother. The Present Petitioner is yet to give affidavit in support of his consent expressed in his reply dt.12/6/2018 which is a must condition for compromise.

7. That the dispute does not get sorted out by merely withdrawing the cases filed by the Present Petitioner and his brother Vishal Ahuja.

8. That in case the present petitioner does not file in this Hon’ble Court the required certified copies of court orders and submits his and his brothers affidavits after completing all the conditions of the compromise of respondent No.02, the respondent No. 02 is not ready for any compromise.

9. That no compromise in writing has been arrived at between the parties.

It a humble request that in the absence of compromise between the parties the criminal proceedings of the case against the Present Petitioner may not be quashed in the interest of justice and the present petitioner and his brother Vishan Ahuja be directed to submit certified copies of court orders to this Hon’ble Court and file the affidavits fulfilling all the conditions of compromise of the respondent No.2. The conditions of compromise include filing an affidavit by the present petitioner accepting the judgment and decree of divorce, surrendering custody, guardianship and visitation rights and any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh and giving sole permanent custody and guardianship of the minor child Shivansh to the Respondent No.2 Sonal and stating that the petitioner and his family members will not do any claim / demand over the minor child under any circumstances Whatsoever it may be. Affidavits of Present Petitioner and his brother Vishal Ahuja stating that all cases, FIRs, complaints have been withdrawn against the Respondent (30 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] No.2 and her family members filed by the Present Petitioner and his family members and no new litigation, FIRs complaints, applications will be filed against the Respondent No.2 and her family members by the Present Petitioner and his family members. In case the Present Petitioner and his brother Vishal Ahuja do not fulfill all the conditions of compromise and the parties do not file compromise deed in writing in this Hon’ble Court, the Respondent No.2 is not ready for any compromise. In the absence of settlement/ compromise of entire matrimonial dispute the quashing of FIR u/s498a, 406 IPC is required not to be done and it is further requested that the Present CrLMP kindly be dismissed and the trial court be directed to do speedy trial and impart justice to the respondent No.2.

Humble Respondent No.2 Sd/ (Sonal) Dt.-23/7/2108″

Again on 25.07.2018, the respondent No.2 filed an application, which is reproduced hereunder:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017 (WITH STAY APLICATION NO.3076/2017) Date of Hearing 09.08.2018 Vikram Ahuja V/S State & Anr.

APPLICATION To, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

Humble Respondent No.2 begs to submit as under :-

1. That the Respondent No. 2 had submitted her conditions of compromise through the following:

S.No.                   Reg. No.                     Reg.Date
1.        APPLR 74/2018                        17/1/2018
                               (31 of 43)                  [CRLMP-3079/2017]


2.      APPLR 177/2018                               15/2/2018
3.      APPLR 252/2018                               14/3/2018
4.      APPLR 316/2018                               9/4/2018
5.      Written Arguments 14501/2018                 2/7/2018
6.      Written Arguments 14502/2018                 9/7/2018


2. That on 9/7/2018 the Present Petitioner and his brother Vishal Ahuja had undertaken before the Hon’ble Court that the cases filed by them on the Respondent No.2 and her family members will be withdrawn by next date of hearing. The Hon’ble Court directed the present petitioner and his brother to withdraw cases against the Respondent No. 2 and her family members. To solve the entire matrimonial dispute and to come to a compromise between the parties further orders for fulfillment of rest of the conditions of compromise are requested to be passed by the Hon’ble Court.

3. That the Present Petitioner in order to come to a compromise after withdrawing the cases needs to file an affidavit in this Hon’ble Court stating that the present petitioner and his family members will have no right to the custody, guardianship and visitation rights & any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh and the permanent sole custody and guardianship of the minor child Shivansh shall vest in the Respondent No. 2 Sonal. The petitioner & his family members will not do any other claims/ demand over the minor child under any circumstances whatsoever it may be in future also.

4. That the present petitioner after withdrawing his cases and getting cases withdrawn from his relatives is also required to file an affidavit himself and also get an affidavit filed from his brother Vishal Ahuja stating that they have withdrawn all the cases against the respondent No. 2 and her family members and no other cases, FIRs, Complaints have been filed by the Present Petitioner and his family members on Respondent no.2 and her family members and the Present Petitioner and his family members will not file new litigation, complaint or any other application before any authority/ Court/Forum in this regard in future on the Respondent No. 2 and her family members.

5. That the present petitioner also needs to refrain from filing appeal against the decree of divorce granted by the family court Sriganganagar on 21-04-2018 in case No. CM610/15 and needs to submit an affidavit to this Hon’ble Court stating that the Present Petitioner has not challenged/filed appeal against the decree of divorce.

6. That the present petitioner has mentioned in tokc izkFkZuk i= on 07-06-2018 in family court Sriganganagar in the first line of second page “izkFkhZ }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ds le{k vizkFkhZ;k }kjk j[ks x;s jkthukek ds pkj izLrkoksa dks v{kj’k% Lohdkj fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ;k dh gj “krZ ekuus dks igys (32 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] Hkh rS;kj Fkk vkSj vkt Hkh rS;kj gS ” (Certified copy attached) The present petitioner in his reply to Hon’ble High Court dated 12-06-2018 has mentioned is the last para that he is ready to settle amicably all the matters and ready and willing to fulfill all the condition mentioned in application and revised application. According to the present petitioner he is ready to fulfill the conditions of compromise so the Hon’ble Court passed order dt 9/7/2018, the compliance of which is yet to be started by the Present Petitioner.

7. That if the Present Petitioner files appeal against the decree of divorce, the Respondent No.2 will again be facing harassment.

8. That the minor child Shivansh has threat to life from the Present Petitioner and his family members. In case the Present Petitioner does not surrender Custody, guardianship and Visitation Rights and any other right with respect to the minor child Shivansh, the life of the minor child will not be safe.

9. That if the Present Petitioner and his brother Vishal Ahuja do not give affidavit that they have withdrawn all the cases and will not file any new cases, FIRs, litigation against the Respondent no.2 & her family members, they will be free to file new cases and harass the Respondent No.2 and her family members.

10. That the Present Petitioner had attached an affidavit with his reply dt.12/6/18 mentioning that the cases will be withdrawn by his brother .The Present Petitioner has not given any affidavit of withdrawing cases filed by himself. Further the affdavit does not mentioned no.of S.B.Crim.Misc.Petition with which it is associated and also depicts wrong year 2018 instead of writing S.B. Crim. Petition No. 3079/2017. There is also no mention of date on which the affidavit was sworn.

It is a humble request that the present petitioner be directed to fulfill all the conditions of compromise of respondent No. 2 as mentioned in her applications and written arguments as detailed in above paragraph1 and directions may kindly be given to the Present Petitioner to himself file and get filed proper affidavits from his brother. After all the conditions of compromise are met with, the compromise arrived at between the parties with their free will, without any force and corection need to be reduced to writing & to be singed in the presence of witnesses and all the parties be remain bound by the settlement/compromise and abide by the same and do not withdraw from the compromise in any situation and circumstances. The compromise arrived at needs to be filed in the Hon’ble High Court. In case the present petitioner does not fulfill all the conditions of compromise of respondent No.2, the respondent No. 2 is not ready for any compromise. In the absence of settlement of entire matrimonial dispute the quashing of FIR under section 498A, (33 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] 406 IPC is requested not to be done and it is requested that the written arguments of respondent No.2 (Inward No. 5734/18), documents (Inward No.14500/17), Certified copies (Inward No.5720/18), along with citations and wedding card be taken into consideration and present Crlmp No. 3079/17, kindly be dismissed and trial court be directed to do speedy trial and impart justice the respondent No.2.

Date-19-07-2018 Humble Applicant/ Respondent No.2 Attachments with Fard Talbana:

1. Certified copy of tokc izkFkZuk i= Sd/-

dt. 07-06-2018 of Family Court, Shriganganagar (Sonal)

2. Postal receipts-6 No.s”

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 09.07.2018, the petitioner and his relatives withdrew all the cases filed by them against the respondent No.2 and her parents and submitted certified copies of the orders before this Court along with the affidavits of him, his elder brother and mother. The affidavit of petitioner-Vikram Ahuja is reproduced as under:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017 (WITH STAY APPLICATION NO.3076/2017) Date of Hearing 09.08.2017 Vikram Ahuja V/s State & Anr.

AFFIDAVIT I, Vikram Ahuja S/o Late Shri Sudharsh Ahuja, B/c Arora aged about 42 years, Resident of Malout (Punjab) At present House No.405, First Floor, Sec.4 Panch Kula (Haryana), do hereby state on oath as under:-

(34 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

1. That I have withdrawn the petition No.37/2017 pending before the family court Sri Ganganagar.

2. That I have withdrawn the complaint No.218/71 in the court of CJM Sri Ganganagat against the Res. No.2.

3. That I have withdrawn all the cases against the respondent No.2 & her Family members and no other cases FIR complaints have been filed by deponent.

4. That I will not file new litigation, complaint or any other application before any authority /Court/ Form in the regard in future on the respondent No.2 and her family members.

5. That I have withdrawn the custody, guardianship visitation rights any other right with respect to the minor child Shivnash and the permant sole custody and guardianship of the minor child Shivansh shall vest in respondent No.2.

6. That I will not do any other claim/Demand over the minor child under any circumstances whatever it may be in future also.

7. That I will not challenged the order granted by the Family Court Sri Ganganagar.

Sd/ DEPONENT VERIFICATION:

I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct. Nothing has been concealed and no part of it is false. So help me God.

Sd/ DEPONENT”

The affidavit of Vishal Ahuja, elder brother of petitioner Vikram Ahuja is reproduced as under:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017 (WITH STAY APPLICATION NO.3076/2017) Date of Hearing 09.08.2017 Vikram Ahuja V/s State & Anr.

                          (35 of 43)                  [CRLMP-3079/2017]

                          AFFIDAVIT

I, Vishal Ahuja S/o Late Shri Sudhash Ahuja, B/c Arora, Aged abour 44 years, Resident of Surja Ram Market Malout (Punjab) do hereby state on oath as under:-

1. That I have withdrawn th complaint No.82/17 Pending in the court of SDJM Malout (Punjab).

2. That I have withdrawn the FR No.81/2018 arising out of FIR No.393/17 Police station Sadar Sri Ganganagar.

3. That I have withdrawn all the cases against the respondent No.2 & her family members and no other cases FIR complaints have been filed by deponent.

4. That I will not file new litigation, complaint or any other application before any authority/Court/Form in the regard in future on the respondent No.2 and her family members.

Sd/ DEPONENT VERIFICATION I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct. Nothing has been concealed and no part of it is false. So help me God.

Sd/ DEPONENT”

The affidavit of Kamlesh, mother of petitioner Vikram Ahuja is reproduced as under:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Crl. MISC. PETITION NO.3079/2017 (WITH STAY APPLICATION NO.3076/2017) Date of Hearing 09.08.2017 Vikram Ahuja v/s State & Anr.

AFFIDAVIT I, Kamlesh W/o late Shri Sudharsh Ahuja, B/c Arora, aged about 67 years, Resident of Surja Ram Market Malout (Punjab) do hereby state on oath as under:-

(36 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017]

1. That I have not file any Complaint, Fir, Petition against the respondent No.2 & her Family members.

2. That I will not file new litigation, complaint or any other application before any authority/Court/ Form in the regard in future on the respondent No.2 and her family members.

Sd/ DEPONENT VERIFICATION:

I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of my above affidavit are tyrue and correct. Nothing has been concealed and no part of it is false. So help me God.

Sd/ DEPONENT”

From the above facts, it is clear that all the cases filed by the petitioner, his brother and mother against the respondent No.2 and her parents have already been withdrawn. The petitioner has given an undertaking to this effect that he would not file any appeal against the decree of divorce granted in favour of respondent No.2 by the Family Court, Sriganganagar on 21.04.2018. He has also given an undertaking to this effect that he would not file any criminal case against the respondent No.2 or her relatives. The brother and mother of the petitioner have also filed similar undertakings before this Court, which are quoted earlier. The certified copies of all the cases filed on behalf of the petitioner and his relatives are already produced before this Court and from the above, it is clear that the conditions put forth by the respondent No.2 in various applications referred above have already been fulfilled.

(37 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] It is very strange that on 09.08.2018 when this criminal misc. petition came up for hearing, the respondent No.2 informed this Court that she has already moved an application on 08.08.2018 and is not ready for compromise on any terms. She has raised objections in respect of one affidavit filed by the petitioner on 17.06.2018 before this Court while pointing out certain defects in the said affidavits i.e. number of this criminal misc. petition is not written and the same does not refer about visitation rights, withdrawal of cases of present petitioner etc. She has also stated that as the petitioner has made some false statements regarding return of ‘Stridhan’ etc. she is not ready for any compromise and does not give her consent for compromise.

From the order-sheets of this criminal misc.

petition, it is clear that on each and every date, the respondent No.2 remained present before this Court. This matter has been listing before me from March, 2018 and I distinctly remember that on every date the respondent No.2 has specifically stated that she is ready for compromise if all the criminal cases filed by the petitioner and his brother are withdrawn and the petitioner waives his visitation rights and any other rights with respect to his son, however, when all the conditions on which the respondent No.2 was insisting have been fulfilled, she has filed an application on 08.08.2018 refusing to compromise the matter. In the opinion of the Court such conduct of a (38 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] litigant cannot be appreciated and is a clear case of abuse the process of court.

It appears that on 08.08.2018, the respondent No.2 was very well aware about the fact that all the criminal cases including the application seeking guardianship and custody of minor child, born out from the wedlock of petitioner and respondent No.2 have been dismissed as withdrawn and then she filed application, raising frivolous grounds regarding defect in the affidavits submitted earlier by the petitioner claiming that false statements have been made by the petitioner. In the opinion of the Court, a litigant, who first agrees for compromise in a matrimonial dispute on certain conditions, cannot repudiate from his/her agreement to compromise the same after those conditions are fulfilled by other party.

It seems that the intention of the respondent No.2 is to harass the petitioner and his family members even after withdrawal of all the cases instituted at their instance in criminal courts. The respondent No.2 has failed to establish that any other case instituted at the instance of the petitioner or his family is pending against her or her parents in any court of law. The above noted conduct of the respondent No.2 indicates that she is attempting to abuse the process of Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has come down heavily on the litigants who attempt to abuse the process in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Anr. vs. Pradnya (39 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] Prakash Khadekar and Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 496, wherein it has been held as under:

“13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth.

14. Courts across the legal system – this Court not being an exception – are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behavior. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of (40 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner.”

I am of the firm opinion that it is a fit case where strict action is required to be taken against the respondent No.2 but taking into consideration that the parents of her are of old age and she is also having responsibility of a minor son, I restrain myself from passing any order against respondent No.2 but she is warned not to attempt to abuse the process of courts in future.

Otherwise also, I have gone through the material collected by the police during the course of investigation, wherein the police have found prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 406 IPC.

Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.11.2008 at Sriganganagar, thereafter the respondent No.2 stayed for about 7 days at her in-laws house in Malout, Punjab and thereafter they left for Panch Kula (Haryana), where the (41 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] petitioner was doing his business. They went to Kerala and Mumbai for honeymoon and started living at Panch Kula (Haryana). The respondent No.2 has alleged in her complaint that the petitioner demanded dowry from her while residing at Panch Kula. She has also alleged that the petitioner’s mother, his elder brother and wife of his elder brother had also demanded dowry from her, however the said allegation of the respondent No.2 was not found true by the police and, therefore, no charge-sheet has been filed against those persons.

It is also to be noticed that the respondent No.2 filed an application under section 190 CrPC before the trial court requesting for taking cognizance against the petitioner’s mother and elder brother and his wife, however, the said application was rejected by the trial court by passing a detailed order on 16.01.2017 with the observations that there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the said persons demanded dowry either from the respondent No.2 or her parents.

In her statement recorded by the police under section 161 CrPC, the respondent No.2 has alleged that all the persons named in the complaint have treated her with cruelty but no specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. She has also not stated that the petitioner ever demanded dowry at Sriganganagar.

So far as ‘Stridhan’ of the respondent No.2 is concerned, it is noticed that respondent No.2 in her police statements recorded on 21.06.2013 has admitted that ” eSaus (42 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] iapk;r esa esjs ifr ls esjs tsojkr tks esjs ekrk firk us fn;s Fks o esjh dkj tks eq>s ngst esa feyh Fkh ;s eSaus izkIr dj fy;s gSA “. Though, she has further stated that the ‘Stridhan’ given to her by her in-

laws has not been returned to her. The father and mother of the respondent No.2 in their statements recorded before the police have also admitted that during Panchayat, the ornaments and a car which were given in the dowry, were returned to them but they have also insisted that the other household items have not been returned to her.

During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of several persons, who have stated that on 09.03.2011, a meeting of Panchayat was convened in Fazilka, Punjab, where in the presence of father and maternal uncle of the respondent No.2 and in the presence of the petitioner and his some relatives, all the dowry items and ornaments were handed over to the father of the respondent No.2 and receipt whereof has also been given by her father.

From the above, it can be gathered that ‘Stridhan’ of respondent No.2 was returned in March, 2011 itself i.e. much before filing of the complaint.

Taking into consideration the above facts, I am of the opinion that sufficient material is not available on record to frame charges against the petitioner under section 498A and 406 IPC.

Having taken into consideration the material available on record and the compromise proceedings taken (43 of 43) [CRLMP-3079/2017] place between the parties before this Court and other facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal misc.

petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.08.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar and the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar are set aside. The proceedings pending against the petitioner in Cr.Case No.12/2016 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar are terminated.

All the applications filed by respective parties are disposed of.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J m.asif/PS Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s