Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 397 (RAJ)

Yogesh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-09

K.C.SHARMA

body2005
Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties. Through this petition, the accused petitioners has invoked inherent jurisdiction for quashing FIR No. 9/2003 registered for offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC at Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar. 2. Mr. Damodar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the FIR lodged by the respondent wife against the petitioner does not disclose any offence and that too has been lodged after she first resorted to the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for restitution of conjugal rights. According to him, the criminal proceedings instituted by the non-petitioner wife are manifestly malicious and have been launched with an ulterior motive. The false hood of the FIR is apparent from the mere fact that not only the petitioner and his uncle who are residing in Sarjah (UAE) and Mumbai, respectively, but minor sister of the petitioner has also been implicated in the case. Learned Counsel further contended that the parties have amicably settled their disputes out of the Court and to this effect the parties have recorded settlement in writing on 02.08.2002. According to him all the belongings of either party have been returned and that the application filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights shall also be withdrawn. In this back-ground, learned Counsel argued that it would be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be continued, inasmuch as continuance of criminal proceedings would be a strong obstacle in meeting out the differences between two families, rather it would create further problems. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the complainant have rebutted the above arguments. Mr. Dhand appearing for the non-petitioner has vehemently argued that the non-petitioner, just after her marriage was subjected to severe cruelty for and in connection with demand of dowry and therefore, she had no option but to report the matter to the Superintendent of Police, which was turned into the FIR in question. Learned Counsel also denied any such compromise/settlement between the parties. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. Having gone through the contents of the petition and the papers annexed therewith, it appears that apart from criminal proceedings instituted at the instance of non-petitioner, litigations under the Hindu Marriage Act are also going on between the parties. Learned Counsel also denied any such compromise/settlement between the parties. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. Having gone through the contents of the petition and the papers annexed therewith, it appears that apart from criminal proceedings instituted at the instance of non-petitioner, litigations under the Hindu Marriage Act are also going on between the parties. The non-petitioner has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 31.05.2002 for restitution of conjugal rights, while the petitioner has filed a divorce petition under Section 13 on the ground of desertion and cruelty, on 212.2002 5. It appears from the contents of the petition and the documents annexed therewith that just a few months had elapsed from the date of marriage of petitioner with the non-petitioner, the parents and relatives of the petitioner started harassing the later for and in connection with dowry. On denial to fulfil their dowry demands the non-petitioner was alleged to be subjected to curelty at the hands of her in laws and other relatives in her laws family. Ultimately, harassment and cruelty to the non-petitioner persuaded her to initiate criminal action and accordingly she submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Sikar on 012.2002 which came to be registered as FIR No. 9/2003 on 03.01.2003 against the petitioner husband and his other relatives. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that parties have amicably compromised all their disputes stands falsified from the mere fact that after the compromise was arrived at between the parties and alleged to be recorded in writing on 2nd August, 2002, the non-petitioner wife submitted a detailed complainant to the Superintendent of Police on 9th December, 2002 levelling allegations against the petitioner husband and his family members and this complaint was turned into FIR dated 9th January, 2003. 6. From what has been stated above, it is evident that proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act are still going on between the parties and one of the strong ground viz. the matter stands amicably settled in writing between the parties, on which FIR has been sought to be quashed, has been strongly denied by the Counsel appearing for the non-petitioner. Be that as it may considering the allegations and counter-allegations, I do not find it to be a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction. the matter stands amicably settled in writing between the parties, on which FIR has been sought to be quashed, has been strongly denied by the Counsel appearing for the non-petitioner. Be that as it may considering the allegations and counter-allegations, I do not find it to be a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction. That apart, I have also gone through the FIR and the allegations levelled therein, in my considered view, prima facie makes out a case for investigation by the police. There is hardly any ground to quash the FIR. 7. In the result, this misc. petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.