Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
P.K. LOHRA, J.
Dhanwanti Devi D/o Shri Vasudev, w/o Roshan Lal - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
CR. MISC. (PET.) (CRLMP) NO. 733 OF 2015
Decided On : 12-08-2016
For the Petitioner: Ms. DHANWANTI DEVI.
For the State : Dr. P.S. BHATI, Mr. Narendra Gehlot.
For the Respondent: Mr. MAHESH BORA, Mr. D.D. Chitlangi, Mr. Rakesh Matoria.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A, 323, 406, 467, 468, 354, 363A, 364A, 366A, 366B, 370, 376, 498A 471 and 509 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 and 156 – Inadequate Dowry – Harassing – Specific Allegation – Criminal Misappropriation – Complaint filed was sent for investigation under sub-sec.(3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. to Mahila Police Station, Hanumangarh and investigation in matter was conducted by second respondent as SHO of police station – Petitioner has leveled serious allegations against second respondent in petition by stating that she was hand in glove with her husband and other members of in-laws family and with a view to help them pressurized her to sign a written compromise but she declined – Petitioner later on second respondent forged her signature on a written compromise and relying on said compromise submitted a false final report before learned trial Court – Besides second respondent petitioner has also attributed vital role of her other subordinates in entire episode – Held, Situation also clears decks so as to proceed with investigation in registered against unknown persons requires probe with utmost promptitude for reaching at some logical conclusion noteworthy that second respondent being in helm of affairs as Investigating Officer in a case wherein accused persons are charged for committing a social crime, such lapses are not pardonable and at times this sort of conduct of an investigating officer may shake or erode confidence of public at large in functioning of police sleuths quoted factual report also speak volumes about the fact that conduct of second respondent and Constable Raghuveer Singh is under cloud and therefore apprehension of the petitioner about impartiality of these two individuals in matter of investigation cannot be ruled out in totality over-enthusiasm shown by both of them in order to prepare a copy of compromise deed by manipulating signatures of petitioner and her father is a conduct unbecoming of a public servant – Petition is partly allowed.
1. By the instant misc. petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed for numerous reliefs. The relief clause of the petition, in vernacular, is reproduced as under:
“vr% Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226&227] Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk 1860 o ifjokfjd U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e ds varxZr fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dj izkFkhZuh Jheku th ls izkFkZuk djrh gS fd &
v-eqdnek u- 60@2013 dh i=koyh dks vf/kuLr U;k;ky; ls ryc dj QkStnkjh izdj.k l- 69@2013 ds vUos"k.k ds nkSjku izLrqr vk{ksfir izkFkZuk i= fnukad 17@4@2013 dk dwVjfpr gksuk lkfcr gks x;k gSA rRdkyhu Fkkuk vf/kdkjh fueZyk fc'uksbZ o mlds lg;ksxh j?kwohj }kjk vU; ls feydj fd;s x;s vijk/k dh izFke lwpuk izkFkhZ;k }kjk vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªSV izFke oxZ guqekux<+ dks nh tk pqdh gS vkSj ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ml ij tkap Hkh djokbZ xbZ gS A iqfyl }kjk ,Qvkj is'k djus ds i'pkr vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 17@4@2013 ds izkFkhZ;k o izkFkhZ;k ds firk ds
gLrk{kj;qDr fookfnr nLrkost dh ,Q,l,y djok;s tkus ds i'pkr izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij fueZyk fc'uksbZ o j?kwohj }kjk vU; ls feydj fd;k x;k vijk/k lkfcr gks x;k gS A bl ij u;s fljs ls eqdnek ntZ dj tkap djokuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gS A vr% fueZyk fc'uksbZ o vU; ds f[kykQ izlaKku ysus ds vkns'k nsosaA
vk- ekuuh; U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªSV izFke oxZ ds in ij vklhu fguk ifjgkj] lgk;d yksd vfHk;kstd y[kfoUnz flWag }kjk inks ads nq:i;ksx dj eqfYtekuksa dks ykHk igqaPkkus dk vijk/k dkfjr djus ij l[r ls l[r dkuwuh o foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k nsosaA
bZ- ftyk ,oa lS'ku U;k;k/kh'k guqekux<+ ds in ij vklhu jktsUnz izlkn ikjhd }kjk fnukad 8@11@2013 dks fguk ifjgkj] y[kfoUnz flWag] fueZyk fc'uksbZ] j?kwohj o vU; dks n.M ls cpkus ds mn~ns'; ls ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa feF;k fjiksVZ izLrqr djus ij l[r ls l[r dkuwuh o foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k nsosaA
bZ- rRdkyhu vfr- iqfyl v/kh{kd tLlkjke cksl] rRdkyhu iqfyl v/kh{kd dSyk'k pUnz fc'uksbZ ds lkFk lkFk x.ks'k dqekj iq= gsrjke , ,l vkbZ iqfyl Fkkuk efgyk guqekux<+] nfj;k flWag iq= Lo- Jh jrhjke gSM dkfu- u- 110 iqfyl Fkkuk efgyk guqekux<] dfiy eqfu iq= Jh HkkxhjFk dkfu- u- 581 iqfyl Fkkuk lnj guqekux<] Jhefr vuhrk iRuh izeksn dqekj vkj efgyk dkfu- u- 1172 iqfyl Fkkuk guqekux< o vU; }kjk fueZyk fc'uksbZ] j?kwohj o vU; dks U;kf;d izfdz;k esa ykHk igqapkus dk vijk/k dkfjr djus ij l[r ls l[r dkuwuh o foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k nsosaA
m- fnukad 2@5@2013 dks efgyk vkj{kh dSUnz] guqekux< }kjk ekuuh; U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªSV izFke oxZ esa izLrqr tkap fjiksVZ dks 'kqU; ekurs gq, mDr i=koyh dks vfxze vuqla/kku ds fy, Hkstk tk, vkSj eqfYtekuksa dks /kkjk 406 ds varxZr ltk ds gdnkj ekurs gq, mudh fxjrkjh ds vkns'k nsosa D;ksa fd izkFkhZuh dk leLr L=h/ku vkt Hkh eqfYtekuksa ds dCts esa gSA
Å- ekuuh; ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; esa U;k;k/kh'k ds in ij vklhu enu xksiky O;kl o vf/koDrk pUnz dSyk'k Lokeh ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e ds fo:) tkucw> dj fo/khfo:/k dk;Zokgh;ka djus ij l[r ls l[r dkuwuh o foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k nsosaA
_- vU; dksbZ vuqrks’k tks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; izkFkhZuh ds gd esa mfpr le>saA“
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner submitted a criminal complaint against her husband, in-laws and maternal uncle-in-law with a specific allegation that they are harassing her for bringing inadequate dowry and have also given her beating. She has also charged the accused persons for criminal misappropriation of her ‘‘Streedhan’’ under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC. The complaint filed before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hanumangarh (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) was sent for investigation under sub-sec.(3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. to Mahila Police Station, Hanumangarh and investigation in the matter was conducted by second respondent as SHO of the police station. The petitioner has leveled serious allegations against second respondent in the petition by stating that she was hand in glove with her husband and other members of in-laws family and with a view to help them pressurized her to s
