SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Raj) 662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN PRINCIPAL SEAT, JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Kuldeepak S/o Ramesh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 527 of 2015
Decided on : 02-07-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Devesh Bohra, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Choudhary, Mr. T.C. Sharma, Adv.

Headnote:

Indian Panel Code - Sections 498A and 406 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13B – Jurisdiction – FIR – Allegation – Evidence - It was further alleged that at time of marriage her father gave wholesome dowry viz. cash ornaments and other household articles to complainant - Complainant went to live at her matrimonial home at Flanna – Held, In this background manifestly ingredients of offences alleged are not made out against accused from relevant record including proceedings of Family Court which form an integral part of proceedings required to be considered for just decision of instant case - Hence criminal proceedings pending against accused deserve to be quashed – petition allowed

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Original Case No.17/2015 arising from FIR No.458/2010 registered at the Police Station Sumerpur, District Pali pending against them in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, District Pali for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

2. Facts in brief are that the respondent No.2 complainant submitted a written report to the SHO, Sumerpur alleging inter alia that she was married to the petitioner No.1 Kuldeepak on 19.02.2009 as per the Hindu rites and customs. It was further alleged that at the time of marriage, her father gave wholesome dowry viz. cash, ornaments and other household articles to the complainant. The complainant went to live at her matrimonial home at Falna. However, soon after the marriage, her husband and other matrimonial relatives started harassing the complainant on account of dowry and demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and a motorcycle for the petitioner Kuldeepak. The complainant expressed that her father was not financially sound enough to accede to these demands on which, just about 7-8 days of the marriage, Kuldeepak (husband) slapped the complainant whilst her mother-in-law and her Jethani Meena Sharma, pulled her hair. The complainant somehow tolerated the cruel acts of the accused. About a month of the marriage, she went to Ahore and rejoined her duty as a Nurse at the Bishnoi Nursing Home where, she was serving from before her marriage. Her father-in-law, grand mother-in-law and brother-in-law threatened her that she must leave the service or else, she would be turned out of the matrimonial home. On being so compelled, the complainant had no choice but to leave her job and started living at the matrimonial home. However, her in-laws persisted with their cruel behaviour and continued to demand a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and a motorcycle and pressurised the complainant to bring the same from her father. The husband Kuldeepak and Jethani Meena Sharma threatened that she would be killed by burning after pouring kerosene upon her. When the cruelties crossed all limits and the complainant could not tolerate the torture any further, she called her father who expressed his inability to meet the unjust demands of the accused on which, the complainant was expelled from the matrimonial home on 23.01.2010. Since then, she was residing at Sumerpur. The community members tried to intervene and talk sense into the accused persons but they did not relent from the demands. On the basis of this report, the above mentioned FIR came to be registered and investigation was commenced. A charge-sheet was filed in the court concerned only against the petitioner Kuldeepak for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. However, on an application being moved by the respondent No.2 under Section 190 Cr.P.C., process was also issued against the petitioners No.2 and 3 being the mother in law and sister in law of the complainant. The petitioners challenged the order taking cognizance through separate revisions filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The revision petitions were allowed by a common order dated 10.07.2012 and the order taking cognizance was set aside. On an application moved by the petitioner No.1, the learned ACJM, Sumerpur directed return of the charge-sheet to the Additional Public Prosecutor for the submission thereof in the competent court having jurisdiction. Thereafter, a fresh charge-sheet was filed in the court of the ACJM, Bali against the petitioner No.1 only. However, the ACJM, Bali accepted the application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and issued process against the petitioners No.2 and 3 vide order dated 07.01.2015. It may be noted here that even before these proceedings were being contemplated by the respondent NO.2, the pe









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top