Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Monga, J.
Naini Devi @ Neni Devi @ Neha W/o Ram Narayan Sen and ors.– Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP. and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2887/2024
Decided On : 27-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Devendra Khatri
For the Respondent: Mr. H.S. Jodha, PP, Mr. Bhavit Sharma, for complainant
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that vague allegations in matrimonial disputes can lead to misuse of legal provisions, necessitating a clear prima facie case for prosecution.
Headnote:
Quashing - FIR - IPC Sections 498-A, 406, 323 - The court quashed the FIR against certain relatives due to lack of specific allegations, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case to prevent misuse of legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR alleging dowry harassment and cruelty under IPC Sections 498-A, 406, and 323. The complainant accused her in-laws and husband of demanding dowry and subjecting her to cruelty, but the court found the allegations against the petitioners vague and lacking specificity.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the FIR did not establish a prima facie case against the petitioners, as the allegations were broad and non-specific, indicating potential misuse of Section 498-A IPC. The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing such complaints to protect innocent individuals.
Issues: Whether the FIR against the petitioners contained sufficient specific allegations to warrant prosecution under IPC Sections 498-A, 406, and 323.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that vague and general allegations do not meet the threshold for a prima facie case under Section 498-A IPC, and emphasized the need to prevent misuse of legal provisions in matrimonial disputes.
Result: The FIR against the petitioners was quashed due to lack of specific allegations.
ORDER :
Arun Monga, J.
1. Quashing of an FIR No.61/2024 dated 10.04.2024 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Jodhpur (City East) for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC is sought herein.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case file.
3. The petitioner Nos.3 and 6 are sisters-in-law and 4 and 5 are their husbands, thus brothers in law, of the complainant. A bare reading of the FIR shows that no clear and specific prima facie case against them is made out.
4. Translated version of FIR is as below:-
“1. This is to state that I, the petitioner, was married to Kamlesh, son of Mr. Ram Narayan, resident of C-13, Saraswati Nagar, Yasani First Phase, Jodhpur, on 07.05.2017. The marriage was conducted according to all Hindu religious customs and traditions at the Arya Samaj, Ratanada, Jodhpur.
2. Before the marriage, on 03.05.2017, my husband Kamlesh, along with my three sisters-in-law—Manju, Sarita, and Suman—met at my house, along with their husbands, Ranjit, Ganpat, and Mohit, as well as my in-laws, Naini Devi. They planned a betrothal ceremony, which would enhance our status and reputation in society. Consequently, a betrothal event was scheduled for 10.05.2017 at Indana Hotel, Jodhpur. Prior to the betrothal, Mr. Ram Narayan handed a handwritten note to my father detailing the gifts to be given, including names and relations, and stated that they had no additional demands apart from the wedding. After meeting me, they expressed their approval and suggested that we should marry quickly in a simple manner at the Arya Samaj since Kamlesh had to return to Canada soon. Subsequently, on 05.05.2017, my father-in-law and Mr. Bhagwan, who is Kamlesh's maternal uncle, visited and presented a token for the engagement. They confirmed the wedding for 07.05.2017 at Arya Samaj, Ratanada, Jodhpur, and the marriage took place according to all religious customs in the presence of family members. After the marriage, my father-in-law, Kamlesh, and sister-in-law Manju visited my home and requested that the marriage should not be announced publicly yet. They planned to have a grand engagement celebration to keep the relatives happy, ensuring that no one would be upset. Following this, Mr. Ram Narayan assured my father and, as per his instructions, provided various gold and silver jewelry and expensive outfits as gifts for my husband, in-laws, and sisters-in-law, along with silk quilts and cash for close relatives.
3. After the engagement function, my father-in-law expressed his happiness and mentioned that since Kamlesh had to return to Canada, they would formally complete the wedding rituals when he returned, inviting all relatives for the celebration. My father responded by saying that the marriage had already taken place. In response, my father-in-law stated that they had solidified the relationship through the marriage but would hold the official ceremony in front of all community members. Consequently, the wedding was scheduled for 22.01.2018 at Bhandari Farmhouse, Surpura, where guests were welcomed and honored. Following this, Kamlesh and I performed the Hindu marriage rituals at my residence, where my father generously provided gold and silver jewelry, outfits, gifts, and cash according to his means. The details of the gold and silver jewelry, outfits, and other items given during the engagement and wedding are attached with this report.
4. After the wedding, I arrived at my in-laws' home at C-13, Saraswati Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur. The very next day, my husband, in-laws, and all three sisters-in-law expressed their dissatisfaction, claiming that my father had not arranged the wedding well. My sisters-in-law accused me of neglecting them and their husbands during the wedding, stating that they expected a proper dowry reflecting the status of an NRI, including Rs.25,00,000 and fifty tolas of gold. They felt humiliated by what they considered a meager celebration, which tarnished their
