Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Ramesh Chand Gupta And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp And Another - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2417 of 2018
Decided On : 25-02-2019
Mr. Anil Agarwal, Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP, Mr. Satyam Khandelwal for respondent No. 2, for the Respondents
The court has the discretion to exempt personal appearance before the trial court under certain conditions, and can quash an FIR based on specific allegations and submissions.
Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Matrimonial Offences - The court dismissed the petition filed by the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and husband of the complainant, but exempted their personal appearance before the trial court under certain conditions. The petition filed by the younger brother of the husband and his wife was accepted, and the impugned FIR against them was quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed seeking quashing of FIR for offences under Sections 409A, 406 and 323 IPC related to matrimonial disputes.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition filed by certain family members but exempted their personal appearance before the trial court under conditions. The petition filed by the younger brother of the husband and his wife was accepted, and the impugned FIR against them was quashed.
Issues: Quashing of FIR, Exemption from Personal Appearance, Misuse of Provisions of Matrimonial Offences, Allegations of Demand of Dowry
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the specific allegations, age, and relationship of the petitioners in deciding the exemption from personal appearance. The court also took into account the submissions and precedent related to the misuse of provisions of matrimonial offences and the alleged demand of dowry.
Final Decision: The petition filed by certain family members was dismissed, but their personal appearance before the trial court was exempted under conditions. The petition filed by the younger brother of the husband and his wife was accepted, and the impugned FIR against them was quashed.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 25/2018 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 409A, 406 and 323 IPC.
2. Smt. Akanksha Singhal respondent No. 2 on 18.7.2010 was married with petitioner No. 5.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of FIR.
4. Specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 father-in-law and mother-in-law and petitioner No. 5 husband of the complainant.
5. In view of above, no ground is made to cause interference qua petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and the present petition filed by them is dismissed.
6. However, considering the age and relationship of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, their personal appearance before the trial court is exempted subject to following conditions:-
(a) That the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 shall file an undertaking before the trial court that they 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 Nos. 1 and 2 shall specifically state that any evidence recorded in their absence, but in presence of their counsel, shall be binding upon them.
(c) That the accused petitioner Nos. 1 and 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 Nos. 1 and 2 before the trial court, the trial court shall accept regular bail bonds of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith bonds to be furnished by the sureties and the personal regular bail bonds furnished by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and bonds to be furnished by the sureties shall enure during the pendency of the trial.
7. So far petitioner No. 4 is concerned, he is younger brother of the husband (Devar) of the complainant, whereas petitioner No. 3 is wife of petitioner No. 4 (Devrani).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, 2010 AIR 3363 to contend that the complainant has widened the net too far and has misused the provisions of matrimonial offences by levelling false allegations against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 have nothing to gain from the alleged demand of dowry.
9. After going through the contents of present petition and taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners, the present petition is accepted qua petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 and the impugned FIR qua them alongwith all subsequent proceedings is quashed.
