Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1457 (RAJ)

Laxman Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-16

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 17.10.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate (North) No. 2, Udaipur (for short, 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Original Case No. 1259 of 2004 whereby the Trial Court took the cognizance of the offences under Secs. 211, 379, 406, 420, 468, 471, 503 and 120B IPC against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant criminal revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned. I have carefully gone through the complaint filed by the Non-Petitioner No. 2 before the Trial Court on 10.9.2004 as also the statement of complaint's witness Malsingh. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 Laxman Singh's daughter Krishna Kanwar was married to Non-Petitioner No. 2 on 16.2.2004. However, she was subjected to cruelty by the Non-Petitioner No. 2 and his parents on account of demand of dowry. She was harassed for bringing less dowry, for which, Smt. Krishna Kanwar, daughter of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and sister of petitioner No. 3 filed a complaint against Non-Petitioner No. 2 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur on 4.8.2004. The said complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code and on receipt of the complaint, police registered the FIR No. 36 of 2004 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Udaipur against the Non-Petitioner No. 2. After investigation, Police has recommended filing of the challan against Non-Petitioner No. 2. The copies of the FIR No. 36 of 2004 and relevant material have been placed on record. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, in order to pressurise Smt. Krishna Kanwar, Non-Petitioner No. 2 Mai Singh has filed the instant complaint as a counter blast to the case instituted against him. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Non-Petitioner No. 2 supported the order impugned. 5. On careful perusal of the complaint, the allegation for the offences under Secs. 379, 406 IPC etc. appear to be prima facie made out against Smt. Krishna Kanwar. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Non-Petitioner No. 2 supported the order impugned. 5. On careful perusal of the complaint, the allegation for the offences under Secs. 379, 406 IPC etc. appear to be prima facie made out against Smt. Krishna Kanwar. In the complaint, the Non-Petitioner No. 2 has alleged that the marriage between him and Smt. Krishna Kanwar was solemnized on 16.2.2004 and thereafter Smt. Krishna Kanwar came to the house of Non-Petitioner No. 2. After staying for 4-5 days, she went back to her parental house. Thereafter, she was again brought on a festival. She stayed for about 10 days at her in-laws house and went back to her parental house. She used to go early to school and return late in the night. She stayed for about 4-5 days at the house of Non-Petitioner No. 2 and thereafter during summer vacation she did not stay with Non-Petitioner No. 2 and ultimately went to her parental house on 27.6.2004. However, she was brought back on 4.7.2004 and next day she went to her parental house, but again she came on 16.7.2004 and went back to her parental house on 18.7.2005 alongwith his brother petitioner No. 3 Nahar Singh without the consent of the Non-Petitioner No. 2.However, there is no allegation against her brother Nahar Singh regarding taking away of cash, jewellery etc. In para 4 of the complaint, again the allegation against Smt. Krishna Kanwar is that she did not discharge matrimonial obligations. It was further stated that Smt. Krishna Kanwar informed him that in connivance with Pandit Dalchand Garg and Smt. Jyotsna Sharma, the marriage of Smt. Krishna Kanwar was solemnized with Non-Petitioner No. 2. She refused to cohabit. In para 5 also, similar allegation against Smt. Krishna Kanwar is regarding her age and non performing of cohabitation. In para 6 again, it was alleged that Smt. Krishna Kanwar levelled allegation against Non-Petitioner No. 2 that he is impotent, whereas in fact he is not. There is also allegation of lodging a report by Smt. Krishna Kanwar against Non-Petitioner No. 2. In para 7 of the complaint it is alleged that accused persons mentioned in the complaint demanded money in presence of Khemsingh Kitawat as also demanded money from his father on telephone. In para 8 it is alleged that a similar demand of money was made on 18.7.2004. 6. In para 7 of the complaint it is alleged that accused persons mentioned in the complaint demanded money in presence of Khemsingh Kitawat as also demanded money from his father on telephone. In para 8 it is alleged that a similar demand of money was made on 18.7.2004. 6. From the reading of averments made in whole of the complaint, it nowhere discloses essential ingredients of any of the offences against the petitioners. The entire case appears to be against Smt. Krishna Kanwar daughter of petitioner No. 1 and 2 and sister of petitioner No. 3. 7. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Choudhary Bhajan Singh, AIR 1992 SC 604 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Art. 226 or under Section 482 of CrPC may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rate cases. The following categories were enumerated- (1) Where the allegation made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegation in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying in FIR, do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non - cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 8. Keeping in view the settled legal position, in my considered view, the averments of the complaint do not disclose the essential ingredients of any of the offences even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety. Not only this, the allegations made in the complaint, so far as the petitioners are concerned, are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man can reach to just conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners. In the entire complaint, the allegations are against Smt. Krishna Kanwar who is not before this Court. Not only this, Smt. Krishna Kanwar has filed a complaint against Non-Petitioner No. 2 for the offences punishable under Secs. 498-A and 406 IPC, upon which the police registered crime report No. 36 of 2004 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Udaipur and after investigation recommended to file challan against Non-Petitioner No. 2. Be that as it may, without commenting on the FIR lodged by Smt. Krishna Kanwar, even taking the complaint on its face value, it does not disclose commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners and therefore, the order taking congnizance against the petitioners cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 17.10.2004 qua the petitioners is here by set aside. The proceedings against the present petitioners are quashed. However, it will be open for the Trial Court to proceed against Smt. Krishna Kanwar in accordance with law. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 17.10.2004 qua the petitioners is here by set aside. The proceedings against the present petitioners are quashed. However, it will be open for the Trial Court to proceed against Smt. Krishna Kanwar in accordance with law. The stay application also stands disposed ofPetition allowed. *******