Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 696 (RAJ)

Tek Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-28

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.- Both these revision petitions are directed against the order dated 29.07.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Padampur (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Complaint Case No. 586/2002. Since, both the revision petitions arise out of one and same order, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, they are heard together and decided by this common order. 2. The Non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Saroj in both the revisions, lodged a first information report at police station Gajsinghpur, district Sri Ganganagar being FIR No. 23 dated 22.03.2002 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC. After investigation, police filed a negative final report being FR No. 05 dated 31.03.2002. It appears that during the pendency of the crime report, the parties compromised the matter. The witnesses in the FIR case did not depose against the petitioners. However, subsequently, some dispute arose between the parties and it is alleged by the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2 that she was again turned out of the matrimonial home. A protest petition was filed by Non-petitioner No. 2 before the trial Court which was treated as a complaint. The Non-petitioner No. 2 appeared herself as witness and produced as many as five witnesses. The trial Court by the order impugned took the cognizance of the offence against the petitioners and issued the process. Hence, these revisions. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor as also Counsel for the complainant. 4. From the statement of the witnesses and the material on record, it appears that in Revision Petition No. 554/2004 Petitioner No. 1 Tek Chand is husband of Non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Saroj and Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are parents-in-law, Petitioner No. 4 is brother-in-law and Petitioners No. 5 and 6 are sisters-in-law of the Non-petitioner No. 2 Petitioner 6 who is sister-in-law of the Non-petitioner No. 2 is married and has been residing at Jaipur since long. In Revising Petition No. 553/2004 Petitioner No. 1 is maternal grand father and Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are maternal uncles-in-law of Petitioner No. 1, and have been residing separately in Ward No. 4, Padampur, whereas the Petitioners No. 1 to 3 in Revision Petition No. 554/2004 are residents of Ward No. 12. Thus, the petitioners in Revision Petition No. 553/2004 Lada Ram & Ors. have been residing at far distant place. Thus, the petitioners in Revision Petition No. 553/2004 Lada Ram & Ors. have been residing at far distant place. It is not the case made out from the material that the petitioners namely Lada Ram & Ors. in Revision Petition No. 553/2004 in any manner had any interest in the dowry articles, if at all given by the parents of the complainant. The dowry articles at best can be said to have been given to the husband of non-petitioner No. 2 and her parent-in-law i.e., Petitioners No. 2 and 3 in Revision Petition No. 554/2004 who have been residing together. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the complainant could not point out that the petitioners in Revision Petition No. 554/2004 i.e., sisters-in-law and maternal grand father-in-law and maternal uncles-in-law in any manner have been interested with the dowry articles, so is the case with regard to the causing harassment and cruelty by these petitioners. In these circumstances, in my view, prima facie offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC at best can be made out against Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 in Revision Petition No. 554/2004 who are husband and parents-in-law respectively of the complainant. 5. Consequently, the Revision Petition No. 554/2004 is partly allowed. The order impugned to the extent taking cognizance of offence against Petitioner No. 4 Harvinder Pal, No. 5 Manju Bala and No. 6 Sarita is set aside. The Revision Petition No. 553/2004 is allowed. The order taking cognizance of offence qua Petitioners No. 1 Lada Ram, No. 2 Ganesh and No. 3 Nihal Chand is hereby set aside.