Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1092 (RAJ)

Mangal Singh Khinchi v. State of Rajasthan

2012-05-01

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.7.2011 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shahpura (for short the learned revisional Court") in Criminal Revision Petition No. 5/2010 whereby he dismissed the revision petition and maintained the order dated 6.1.2012 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura District Jaipur (for short "the learned trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 644/2009 whereby he dismissed the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for custody of the vehicle in F.I.R. No. 80/2009 registered at Police Station Shahpura District Jaipur Rural, for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that non-petitioner No. 2 Amar Chand submitted a written complaint to the SHO, Police Station Shahpura District Rural against the petitioner and his other family members to this effect that he solemnized the marriage of his daughter Pinki @ Neha (non-petitioner No. 3) on 21.5.2005 as per the Hindu Rites. The in-laws of Pinki started to torture her with regard to demand of dowry and they also did not return the dowry articles. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint the police registered an F.I.R. No. 80/2009 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. 4. During the course of investigation the police recovered the other dowry articles and also seized the motor-cycle bearing RJ-14-SB-4809. Thereafter, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. in the Court concerned. 5. For release of the motor-cycle on Supurdiginama, separate applications were moved in the learned trial Court i.e. by the accused petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2. The learned trial Court after hearing dismissed the application of the accused petitioner vide order 6.1.2010 for releasing the aforesaid motor-cycle on Supurdiginama and allowed the application filed by non-petitioner No. 2. 6. The accused petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 6.1.2010 passed by the learned trial Court preferred a criminal revision before the learned revisional Court but the learned revisional Court confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28.7.2011. The accused petitioner being aggrieved with both the orders passed by both the learned Courts below has preferred instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 7. The accused petitioner being aggrieved with both the orders passed by both the learned Courts below has preferred instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the police wrongly seized the motor-cycle because the registration of the motor-cycle in question bearing number RJ-14-SB-4809 was in the name of accused petitioner but both the learned Courts below while passing the impugned orders have failed to consider this aspect of the matter and erred in passing the impugned orders. Thus, the impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts below be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners have opposed the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners and submit that right on stridhan is only of stri i.e. non-petitioner No. 3 Pinki @ Neha in the instant case as she is the absolute owner. Here in the instant case the non-petitioner No. 3 is only entitled to take the motor-cycle on Supurdiginama and not the present accused petitioner. Thus, both the learned Courts below passed the impugned orders after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and legal aspect of the matter. Thus, the orders impugned passed by both the learned Courts below need no interference of this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 10. So far as stridhan is concerned, 'stri' who is non-petitioner No. 3 Pinki @ Neha in the instant case, is absolute owner of the same and other than stri no other person can claim for such 'stridhan'. Here in the instant case the non-petitioner No. 3 Pinki @ Neha, is only entitled to take the motor-cycle on Supurdiginama and not the present accused petitioner. If non-petitioner No. 3 Pinki @ Neha authorise any person for releasing the motor-cycle on Supurdiginama then such person can also move an application before the Court concerned in this regard, which has been done in the instant case. If non-petitioner No. 3 Pinki @ Neha authorise any person for releasing the motor-cycle on Supurdiginama then such person can also move an application before the Court concerned in this regard, which has been done in the instant case. In the instant case the registration of the motor-cycle is in the name of accused petitioner, though the police can seize the motor-cycle but it shall be released on Supurdiginama only on the application moved by the stri or on the application of any other person for which she authorizes. Thus, the learned Courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders and orders impugned passed by both the learned Courts below need no interference of this Court. 11. In the result, this criminal misc. petition filed by the accused petitioner is devoid of merits and stands dismissed after confirming the order dated 28.7.2011 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shapura in Criminal Revision Petition No. 5/2010 and the order dated 6.1.2010 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District Jaipur (for short the learned trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 644/2009.Petition dismissed. *******