Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 522 (RAJ)

Kalwant Rai v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-15

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-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 10.04.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 25/2002 (167/1996), whereby the trial Court framed charges against the petitioners and co-accused Hanuman Prasad for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned framing charges, the petitioners have filed the instant revision. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the order impugned as also the challan papers. 3. Complainant Smt. Shashibala filed a complaint before the trial Court against the present petitioners, co-accused Hanuman Prasad, as also against Mahendra Kumar and Pravajan Lal, in all against six persons. The said complaint was sent to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar under Section 156 (3) of the Code for investigation. On receipt of the complaint, the police registered Crime Report No. 56/1996. After usual investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioners and co-accused Hanuman Prasad; however, the other two persons named in the complaint, viz. Pravajan Lal and Mahendra Kumar were not found involved in the crime and, therefore, no challan was filed against these two persons. 4. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that it is an admitted case of the complainant that on 110.1994, she was residing separately alongwith her husband co-accused Hanuman Prasad. Both are teachers and had been serving in the Government Primary School, situate in Chak 1-Z Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar w.e.f. 04.07.1994. The petitioners are resident, of Ward No. 8, Oswal Mohalla, Nohar, district Hanumangarh. The residential place of the petitioners is far away from the place of posting of the complainant where the complainant and her husband co-accused Hanuman Prasad were living separately. It was further contended that the complainant was subsequently transferred to Government Primary School, 51-PBN, Panchayat Samiti, Anoopgarh and this place is also situated at far distance from Nohar where the petitioners are residing. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, from 04.07.1994 onwards, there had been no occasion for the petitioners to have lived with the complainant or having visited the complainants residence where she was/is serving as a teacher in Government school. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, from 04.07.1994 onwards, there had been no occasion for the petitioners to have lived with the complainant or having visited the complainants residence where she was/is serving as a teacher in Government school. Therefore, from 04.07.1994 onwards, there had not been any occasion for the petitioners to harass the complainant. According to the learned Counsel, if at all any harassment was met to the complainant; it might be by her husband co-accused Hanuman Prasad, who is not a petitioner herein. 5. I have carefully gone through the statements of complainant Smt. Shashibala and the teachers serving alongwith her, viz. Laxman Das Goswami and Sugan Puri. Laxman Das Goswami and Sugan Puri have clearly stated that the complainant and her husband have been serving in the same school; the complainant being a Senior Teacher and her husband Hanuman Prasad being a Junior Teacher, the complainant used to taunt her husband. Thus, from the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police during investigation, it prima facie does not appear that the present petitioners, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (Dewar) of the complainant, had any occasion to harass the complainant or to subject her to any cruelty. 6. So far as entrustment of dowry articles is concerned, it has not been specifically mentioned in the complaint, as also in the statement of the complainant as to whom those articles were entrusted. Even if assuming that any dowry article belonging to the complainant remained then it may remain with the complainant herself and her husband Hanuman Prasad, who are living separately from the petitioners. From the record, it appears that the dowry articles have been recovered from complainants husband co-accused Hanuman Prasad after having been arrested vide seizure memo dated 28.05.1996. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and submitted that after investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioners also. Be that as it may, on close scrutiny of the complaint, the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, including the two teachers who have been serving with the complainant herself , in my view, the complainant had been residing separately from the present petitioners at a distant place and the complainant has not shown any occasion on which the petitioners happed to visit the place where complainant resides alongwith her husband and harassed her. Thus, even if the evidence sought to be produced by the prosecution against the petitioners remains uncontroverted, prima facie the essential ingredients for constituting the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC are not made out. In the circumstances, therefore, the impugned order, to the extent of framing charges against the present petitioners, cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.04.2003 passed by the trial Court, to the extent of framing charges against the present petitioners viz. Kalwant Rai, Smt. Santosh and Brij Bhushan alias Raju, is hereby set aside. The proceedings against the present petitioners stand quashed and they are discharged from the offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC.