Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1613 (RAJ)

Mukesh Bhansali v. State of Rajasthan

2009-07-16

H.R.PANWAR

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code" hereinafter), the petitioner seek quashing of the F.I.R. No. 158 dated 19.6.2007, Police Station, Sanchore, district Jalore, for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the first informant-respondent No. 2 and carefully gone through the First Information Report. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from the averments made in the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No. 2, of course, there is specific allegation against petitioner No. 1 Mukesh Bhansali, who is the husband of the respondent No. 2. But so far as the averment with regard to other petitioners are concerned, there is absolutely no averment that they ever subjected the complainant-respondent No. 2 with cruelty. So far as allegation against petitioner No. 4 Jitesh Bhansali and petitioner No. 5 Rekha Bhansali, to the extent that they came to Sanchore and abused the complainant-respondent No. 2 is concerned, for that a separate criminal case has been registered against them with the Police Station, Sanchore and the same is investigated in that F.I.R., but at any rate, those allegations cannot be reinvestigated in the F.I.R.-under challenge. 4. On careful perusal of the F.I.R., in my view, there are allegations of subjecting the complainant-respondent No. 2 with cruelty by the petitioner No. 1, the husband of the complainant, right from the second day of the marriage and that cruelty continued till filing of the First Information Report and, therefore, prima facie the F.I.R. disclose the commission of the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. against the petitioner No. 1 Mukesh Bhansali only. 5. So far as the respondent No. 2 to 10 are concerned, they have been implicated as they are the relatives of the petitioner No. 1. In this view of the matter, the criminal miscellaneous petition deserves to be partly allowed. 6. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is partly allowed. The F.I.R. No. 158 dated 19.6.2007, Police Station, Sanchore, district Jalore, qua petitioners No. 2 to 10, viz. Petitioner Chunni Lal Bhansali, Shobagh Devi, Jitesh Bhansali, Rekha Bhansali, Kanti Bhansali, Sangeeta Bhansali, Sukesh Bhansali, Meena Bhansali and Babu Lal Bhansali, is hereby quashed. 6. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is partly allowed. The F.I.R. No. 158 dated 19.6.2007, Police Station, Sanchore, district Jalore, qua petitioners No. 2 to 10, viz. Petitioner Chunni Lal Bhansali, Shobagh Devi, Jitesh Bhansali, Rekha Bhansali, Kanti Bhansali, Sangeeta Bhansali, Sukesh Bhansali, Meena Bhansali and Babu Lal Bhansali, is hereby quashed. However, the police the matter against petitioner No. 1 Mukesh Bhansali report before the competent Court. The stay petition is to continue to investigate and expeditiously file the dismissed.Petition partly allowed. *******