Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Vimla Soni - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1480 of 2019
Decided on : 05-01-2021
Sabir Khan, Advocate, Farzand Ali, Advocate, B.R. Bishnoi, Advocate, P.D. Dave, Advocate
The main legal point established is that permitting the continuance of the investigation against petitioner No.1 was unwarranted and amounted to an abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
498-A - Quashing of FIR - IPC 498-A, 406, 323, 120-B - The court discussed the nature of the dispute between the parties, conciliation attempts, and lack of specific allegations against the petitioner No.1. The investigation of the FIR was quashed against petitioner No.1 but allowed to continue against petitioner No.2.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, and 120-B IPC. The allegations involved marital discord, harassment, and usurpation of Stridhan articles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature of the dispute was over trivial household issues, conciliation attempts were made, and there were no specific allegations against petitioner No.1. It quashed the investigation against petitioner No.1 but allowed it to continue against petitioner No.2.
Issues: The issues involved allegations of harassment, maltreatment, and usurpation of Stridhan articles, as well as the nature of the dispute and the conciliation attempts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the intrinsic nature of the dispute, conciliation attempts, and lack of specific allegations against petitioner No.1 in reaching its decision to quash the investigation against petitioner No.1.
Final Decision: The investigation of the FIR was quashed against petitioner No.1 but allowed to continue against petitioner No.2.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners Smt. Vimla Soni and Dinesh Soni seeking quashing of the FIR No.45/2019 registered at the Police Station Mahila Thana (West), Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 120-B IPC.
2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the petition are noted hereinbelow.
3. As per the allegations set out in the FIR, the respondent No.2 Smt. Nitu complainant was married to the petitioner No.2 Dinesh Soni on 15.04.2016. It appears that soon after the marriage, minor squabbles started taking place between the complainant and her mother-in-law the petitioner Vimla Soni over day to day household chores. The husband Dinesh Soni also used to quarrel with the complainant allegedly on the instigation of his mother. The complainant conceived from the wedlock and she was admitted at the AIIMS Hospital by her in-laws. She gave birth to a daughter named Ruparna on 13.12.2017. She was dropped off at her father's house after being discharged from the hospital. The parties allegedly quarrelled with each other over this sequence of events. The complainant stayed at her father's house for about 6 to 7 months after the birth of her child, whereafter, her husband took a separate premises on rent at Chandna Bhakhar, Jodhpur and the spouses started living there with their child. There too, the disputes between the husband and the wife continued over trivial issues. On 29.09.2018, the husband and the wife quarreled with each other, on which, the complainant's brother and other relatives came down to the rented house and an altercation took place between the parties. Dinesh Soni immediately vacated the rented premises and went back to live with his mother. The complainant was taken back to her father's house, where she had been living for last 4 to 5 months. Counselling was undertaken between the spouses for resolution of the matrimonial discord, but could not succeed. The husband refused to live with his wife. Thereupon, the impugned FIR came to be lodged against the petitioners and the other matrimonial family members.
4. As per the factual report placed on record by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer has found the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC proved against the present petitioners after concluding investigation. The conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer in the factual report are relevant and germane for disposal of the miscellaneous petition and thus, are being reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :-
5. Mr. Sabir Khan, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that even accepting the allegations of the complainant to be true on the face of the record, ex facie, no offence is made out against the petitioners. He urged that admittedly, the dispute between the parties was over trivial household issues and that the complainant was never maltreated on account of demand of dowry etc. at any point of time. Because of the inherent differences between the petitioner Vimla and the complainant, the husband Dinesh took a separate premises on rent at Chandna Bhakhar, where the spouses started living together in the year 2017. Thereafter, there was no interaction whatsoever between the petitioner No.1 Vimla Soni and the complainant. He further urged that the petitioner No.2 Dinesh Soni had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent complainant. During these proceedings, conciliation proceedings were held and the complainant agreed to live with the husband. He, thus, urges that ex facie, no ingredients of the offences alleged are made out against the petitioners and the FIR deserves to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. P.D. Dave, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counse
