R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Petitioner has challenged the continuation of the criminal proceedings in a complainant case No. 103/1995 (Old No. 94/1990) pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur for offences under sections 498-A, 406 and 494, I.P.C.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Jain and respondent No. 1. Smt. Veena Jain were married according to Hindu rites on 24.5.1982. During the subsistency of the marriage a daughter was born on 11.5.1984. It seems that after a few years, certain difficulties arose between the parties. Therefore, on 28.1.1985 the petitioner moved a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 for obtaining a divorce decree on the ground of cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife. However. vide order dated 7.6.1991 the Family Court, Jaipur dismissed the said petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed U.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 172/1994. On 9.3.1994 this Court issued notice to the respondent No. 1. During the pendency of the said appeal, a settlement was arrived at between the parties the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. Therefore, a joint application under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed before this Court. On the basis of the joint application on 8.9.1998. this Court allowed the application and directed the Family Court, Jaipur to prepare a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent as per the settlement arrived at between the parties. As per the direction of this Court. the Family Court, Jaipur prepared a decree of divorce of mutual consent incorporating terms and conditions of the compromise entered into between the parties on 14.10.1989. Since, the word "A decree of divorce of mutual consent" was not inadvertently mentioned, therefore, the said decree was subsequently amended on 9.2.2001. It is pertinent to note that one of the conditions mentioned in the joint application filed under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, before this Court. in condition No. 4, it was clearly stated that the respondent No. 1. the wife, is ready and willing to withdraw the Cr. Case No. 103/ 1995 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur at that relevant time. However, despite the fact that such condition was recorded in the joint application, the said criminal case was not withdrawn by the respondent No. 1. Since, the respondent No. 1 has not implemented the undertaking given by her before this Court, this petition has been moved before us for quashing the proceedings pending in the aforesaid criminal case in accordance with the undertaking given by the respondent No. 1 Smt. Veena Jain.
(3.) This matter came up before the Court for hearing on 11. 11.2005 and the Court adjourned the case to 18.1 1.2005 with the direction to the learned Counsel for the parties to keep their respective parties present before the Court on the aforesaid date. However, on 18.11.2005 neither the Counsel for the respondent No. 1 Smt. Veena Jain nor the respondent No. 1 were present. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 22.11.2005. On 22.11.2005 the respondent No. 1 Smt. Veena Jain and her new Counsel Mr. Rajendra Dixit appeared and Mr. Dixit sought further time to study the matter. therefore, the case was adjourned to 29.11.2005.;