Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Kamlesh Meena And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp And Another - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7408 of 2018
Decided On : 01-02-2019
Mr. Tushar Saraswat for Dr. Mahesh Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellants; Mr. V.S. Godara PP, for the Respondents
Exemption of father-in-law from personal appearance based on specific allegations and his age and relationship to the complainant.
Headnote:
Dowry - Exemption of Father-in-law from Personal Appearance - Specific Allegations Against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was married to petitioner No. 1. The father-in-law, petitioner No. 2, was exempted from personal appearance before the trial court due to his age and relationship to the complainant, subject to certain conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The petition was dismissed for petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 due to specific allegations against them, but the father-in-law, petitioner No. 2, was exempted from personal appearance with conditions.
Issues: Implication of various family members in dowry-related offences, exemption of father-in-law from personal appearance, and specific allegations against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the specific allegations against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the age and relationship of petitioner No. 2 in exempting him from personal appearance.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed for petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, and the father-in-law, petitioner No. 2, was exempted from personal appearance subject to specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. In the present case, the complainant/respondent No. 2 Smt. Santara @ Santosh was married with Kamlesh Meena petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is father-in-law of the complainant whereas, petitioner Nos. 3 and 5 are brothers of husband of complainant and petitioner Nos. 4 and 6 are wives of petitioner Nos. 3 and 5, respectively. Petitioner Nos. 7 to 10 are distant relations of husband of the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, 2010 AIR 3363 to contend that all relations have been implicated for the offences under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioner Nos. 3 to 10 have nothing to gain from the alleged demand of dowry.
3. After going through the contents of FIR, considering that there are specific allegations against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, the present petition qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed.
4. However, considering the age and relationship of petitioner No. 2, father-in-law of the complainant, his personal appearance before the trial court is exempted subject to following conditions:-
(a) That the petitioner No. 2 shall file an undertaking before the trial court that he shall appear before the trial court at the time of framing of charges, recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of delivery of the judgment.
(b) That in the undertaking filed the petitioner No. 2 shall specifically state that any evidence recorded in his absence, but in presence of his counsel, shall be binding upon him.
(c) That the accused petitioner No. 2 shall also undertake to appear before the trial court as and when called by the trial Judge.
(d) It is further ordered that upon appearance of the petitioner No. 2 before the trial court, the trial court shall accept regular bail bonds of the petitioner No. 2 alongwith bonds to be furnished by the sureties to its satisfaction and the personal regular bail bonds furnished by the petitioner No. 2 and bonds to be furnished by the sureties shall enure during the pendency of the trial.
5. Issue notice to the respondents qua petitioner Nos. 3 to 10 only for 28.3.2019.
6. List this case on 28.3.2019. Meanwhile, further proceedings only qua petitioner Nos. 3 to 10 arising out of impugned FIR shall remain stayed.
