Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 1086
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
Vikram Ahuja - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3079 of 2017
Decided On : 23-08-2018
Umesh Shrimali, Adv., Vikram Ahuja, Adv., Vishal Ahuja, Adv., V.S. Rajpurohit, Adv., Sonal, Adv.
Headnote:
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on an undertaking given by the petitioner and his brother to withdraw all criminal and civil cases filed against the respondent and her family members.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, the wife of the petitioner, filed a complaint against the petitioner and three other persons for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, and 323 of the IPC. The complaint alleged that the respondent was harassed and insulted on account of demand of dowry by the petitioner and other persons named in the FIR. The police, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner alone for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The trial court took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and framed charges against him. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the revisional court, which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court noted that the respondent was not ready for a compromise till the decree of divorce was passed on a divorce petition filed by her. The Court also noted that the petitioner and his brother had undertaken to withdraw all criminal and civil cases filed against the respondent and her family members. The Court observed that the petitioner and his brother had filed multiple cases against the respondent and her family members, both in Rajasthan and Punjab, and that the respondent had expressed apprehension that the petitioner might withdraw his consent for divorce if the disputes were not resolved.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed based on the undertaking given by the petitioner and his brother to withdraw all criminal and civil cases filed against the respondent and her family members.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the undertaking given by the petitioner and his brother to withdraw all criminal and civil cases filed against the respondent and her family members was sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The Court observed that the respondent had expressed apprehension that the petitioner might withdraw his consent for divorce if the disputes were not resolved, and that the undertaking given by the petitioner and his brother would address this apprehension. The Court also noted that the petitioner and his brother had filed multiple cases against the respondent and her family members, both in Rajasthan and Punjab, and that this showed that the petitioner was intent on harassing the respondent and her family members.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC.
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
1. This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C 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.
2. 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 framing of charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 406 IPC.
3. 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 498A, 406 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 under sections 406, 498A and 323 IPC.
4. 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 illtreatment given to respondent No.2 during her illness as well as of forcing her to get her pregnancy terminated have also been levelled.
5. 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 persons viz. mother, elder brother and wife of the elder brother of the petitioner in commission of any crime.
6. The trial court took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 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 Cr.P.C. 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.
7. 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."
8. Before taking into consideration the challenge of the petitioner to the impugned orders, I would like to 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.
9. 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
