Charges framed under Sections 498A and 323 IPC quashed due to lack of specific allegations and evidence, preventing abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Parents-in-law of non-petitioner No.2 have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1424/2007 and sister-in-law of non-petitioner No.2 has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1425/2007, invoking jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, for quashing the order of charges framed against petitioners for offences under Section 498A and 323 IPC vide order dated 13.08.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu, District Jaipur in Criminal Case No.1244/2005, titled as State v. Bhagwan Sahay and Ors., and consequently to drop proceedings of present criminal case qua petitioners which have arisen out of FIR No.175/2005 registered at Police Station Samod on 14.10.2005 District Jaipur for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC.

2. It is noteworthy that as per the latest status report dated 05.04.2024, sent by the trial Court in the present criminal case, no proceedings against petitioners have commenced, after framing of charges as interim stay on further proceedings is operating in favour of petitioners. As far as husband of non-petitioner No.2 is concerned, the order of charge for offences under Section 498A and 323 IPC framed against him, is not under challenge, hence, proceedings against the husband are in progress, and after conclusion of prosecution evidence, examination of accused-husband under Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court has been held, and at the present criminal case is pending at the stage of his defence evidence.

3. It is also worthy to take note of subsequent facts which have arisen after passing the impugned order and have come on record that on filing a divorce petition by husband Suresh Kumar Narania, his marriage with non-petitioner No.2 solemnized on 02.05.1996, has been ordered to be dissolved and a decree of divorce has been passed by the Family Court No.3, Jaipur vide judgment dated 19.01.2019 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and desertion against non-petitioner No.2. Non-petitioner No.2 filed separate application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but the same has been rejected by the Family Court vide same judgment. It is to be noted that during course of trial of such proceedings, non-petitioner No.2 deposed her evidence before the Family Court wherein she admitted in her cross-examination that dowry was demanded from her after five years of marriage and by that time she had given birth to a baby child. She admitted that marriage of her younger sister was fixed for 12.10.2005 and she came to residence of her parents, to attend the marriage of her younger sister on 10.10.2005; and she was dropped by her husband happily. She admitted that after solemnization of marriage of younger sister, her father lodged the FIR against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law on 14.10.2005.

The Family Court, in the judgment dated 19.01.2019 has taken note of such facts that husband of non-petitioner No.2 dropped her along with minor daughter on 03.09.2005, nearby to her parents' home, to attend the marriage of her younger sister which was fixed for 12.10.2005, but thereafter, FIR was lodged against husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law for offences under Section 498A, 406 and 323 IPC.

4. It is also noteworthy that although after investigation in FIR No.175/2005, police filed charge-sheet for offences under Section 498A, 406 and 323 IPC, but the trial Court noticed that there is no prima facie evidence to prosecute accused persons for offence under Section 406 IPC, therefore, charges have been framed only for offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC and against father-in-law charge is framed only for the offence under Section 498A IPC and no charge for offence under Section 406 IPC has been framed. It appears that to the extent of discharging the petitioner for offence under Section 406 IPC, the order has attained finality.

5. After inviting attention of Court to the subsequent event