SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JODHP
SAFI MOHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRLMP 6670/2019



Advocates:
['PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA', '', 'RAHUL RAJPUROHIT', 'SACHIN ACHARYA', 'PP', 'JEETENDER SINGH KHICHI']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6670/2019

1.

Safi Mohammed S/o Kamarudeen, Aged About 60 Years,

By Caste Musalman, R/o Ward No. 8, Nawan, Police

Station Hanumangarh Junction.

2.

Haneefa Biwi W/o Sh. Safi Mohammed, Aged About 55

Years, By Caste Musalman, R/o Ward No. 8, Nawan, Police

Station Hanumangarh Junction.

3.

Akeel Mohammed S/o Safi Mohammed, Aged About 33

Years, By Caste Musalman, R/o Ward No. 8, Nawan, Police

Station Hanumangarh Junction.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State, Through P.p.

2.

Seema W/o Akeel Mo. D/o Sabir Khan, By Caste

Musalman, R/o New Civil Lines, Hanumangarh (Jun),

District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6775/2019

1.

Wali Mohd. S/o Safi Mohd., Aged About 35 Years, By

Caste Muslim, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Tehsil Nava,

District Hanumangarh.

2.

Seema W/o Wali Mohd., Aged About 30 Years, By Caste

Muslim, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Tehsil Nava, District

Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State, Through Pp

2.

Seema W/o Akeel D/o Sabir Ali, B/c Muslim, Resident Of

Hanumangarh Junction.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. assisted

by Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit.

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP.

Mr. Jeetender Singh Khichi.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

Reserved on 23/08/2022

Pronounced on 25/08/2022

(2 of 5)

[CRLMP-6670/2019]

1.

These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have

been preferred claiming the following reliefs: -

6670/2019:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed, that

this petition of the petitioner may very kindly be allowed, and

Order Dated 27.11. 2019 Passed By Learned ADJ No.2

Hanumangarh, In Criminal Revision No. 188/2019, And Order

Dated 26.08.2019 Passed By Learned Judicial Magistrate

Hanumangarh In Criminal Case No. 197/2018 (C.I.S

No.2876/2018), may be quashed and set aside”.

6775/2019 :

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of

petitioner that the Cr. Misc. petition may kindly be allowed

and the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 passed by

Additional District & Session Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in

criminal revision case no 188/2019 where by the affirmed that

order dated 26.8.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate,

Hanumangarh in criminal case no 197/2018 of framing

charges against the petitioners for offence u/s 498a & 323 IPC

may kindly be set aside”.

2.

Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the

learned counsel for the petitioners, are that on 19.01.2018

complainant/respondent no.2 submitted a report before the Mahila

Thana Hanumangarh, against the petitioners and others. It was

alleged her marriage with the petitioner no.3-Akeel was

solemnized on 16.08.2009, and that her parents gave sufficient

dowry to petitioners. It was further alleged that the petitioners

were not happy with the dowry articles given by her parents at the

time

of

marriage.

On

demand

of

dowry

the

complainant/respondent no.2 is subjected to the physical and

mental cruelty by the petitioners. The complainant/respondent

no.2 further alleged that petitioner no.2-Haneefa during her

(3 of 5)

[CRLMP-6670/2019]

(complainant’s) pregnancy pressurized her to perform grinding the

wheat, due which her tube was damaged and her pregnancy was

terminated.

2.1

However, she blessed with a daughter Heena on 16.11.2011

and her parents gifted some gold and cash amount to the

petitioners, but the petitioners not happy with the gift items and

birth of the child. The complainant gave birth to another daughter

Jasmin in year of 2014. The petitioner no.3 - Akeel however,

performed re-marriage with one Mafia. She further stated that the

petitioners continued to demand the dowry and was subjected to

harassment and cruelty by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top