1 S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.159/2008 Prahlad & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :::::: 18.9.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SARRAF Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma for the petitioners. Mr. Jagdish Lamba, P.P. Mr. Ajay Gupta for respondent no.2. Reportable: This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No.13/2008 registered at the police station Srimadhopur district Sikar under Sections 498A, 406,323, 506, 120-B IPC. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned P.P. and learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that marriage of Gulab who is the daughter of the respondent no.2 with the petitioner no.1 Prahlad was solemnized on 19.4.2007 and on the very next day the petitioner Prahlad came to know that Gulab was impotent and, therefore, on 8.10.2007 he filed an application against Gulab under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on the ground of her impotency. He submits that in order to put pressure on the petitioner Prahlad in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act the respondent no.2 Birbal (father of Gulab) has lodged the FIR on 2.1.2008 falsely implicating the petitioenrs and the FIR is malicious and has been filed in abuse of the process of the Court. He, therefore, prays that the FIR be quashed. He has placed reliance on 2006(2) WLC (SC) Criminal 253 and 2007(2) RCC 556. 2 Learned P.P. and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submit that the FIR cannot be said to be malicious only because the application under Section 12 of the Act has been filed prior to lodging the FIR. In this case undoubtedly the application under Section 12 of the Act has been filed earlier and the FIR has been lodged much later. However, in my view the FIR cannot be said to be maliciously lodged only on the ground that the petitioner had earlier filed an application under Section 12 of the Act. Filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act cannot be the ground to quash the criminal proceedings because criminal and civil proceedings are separate and independent and the pendency of civil proceedings cannot bring to an end the criminal proceedings even if they arise out of the same set of facts. I am fully supported by the judgment reported in 2007 RCC (SC) 972. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly the misc. petition stands dismissed. (G.S.Sarraf),J. Bairwa 3 S.B. Cri. Misc. Stay Application No.102/2008 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.159/2008 Prahlad & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Anr. 18.09.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SARRAF Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma for the petitioners. Mr. Jagdish Lamba, P.P. Mr. Ajay Gupta for respondent no.2. Since the main petition has been dismissed, this stay application also stands dismissed. (G.S.SARRAF),J.