Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 242 (RAJ)

Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-02-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings going on against him in Criminal Case No. 110/2007 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner was married with the respondent No. 2 in the year 2005. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 went to Chennai with the petitioner and his parents where the petitioner works and ultimately the marriage between the two spouses broke down, on which the respondent No. 2 came back to Jaisalmer and filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer with the allegations that after going to Chennai she was harassed by her in-laws for the demand of various dowry articles etc., and that she was turned out of the house by the accused persons in February, 2006. Resultantly, she had to come back to Jaisalmer where she was residing with her father. 3. On the said complaint, proceedings were initiated under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the learned C.J.M., Jaisalmer proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner alone for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. 4. The respondent No. 2 challenged the said order by way of filing a revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer and the learned revisional Court directed for taking of cognizance against the parents of the present petitioner as well as against one Jaya, on which a Revision Bearing No. 387/2008 was preferred before this Court and this Court remanded the matter back to the Sessions Judge for deciding the revision afresh after hearing both the parties. On the remand so being made, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 and the order has been final. 5. Assailing the proceedings against the petitioner, the learned counsel submits that subsequent to the respondent No. 2 deserting the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and the learned Additional Family Court at Chennai in O.P. No. 533/2007 proceeded to allow the application filed by the petitioner by order dated 3.4.2009 and passed a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte order and thereafter withdrew the same. 6. Praying for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the highest allegations of the complainant are accepted, then too, the allegations of the complainant do not disclose any offence fit for trial by the Court at Jaisalmer. Learned counsel submits that the admitted allegations of the complainant are that she after going to Chennai was harassed by the petitioner and his other relatives for the purposes of bringing less dowry. Learned counsel submits that no cognizance has been taken in this matter for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. and all the allegations of the complainant even if accepted to be true at its highest, are related to the incidents at Chennai. Thus he submits that the complaint as well as all the subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner being actuated by malice and not disclosing any cognizable offence, deserve to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel submits that the complainant admittedly came back to Jaisalmer in the month of February, 2006 and the complaint has been filed on 6.4.2007. He submits that there is no justification for the complainant to have waited for a period of a year and two months before filing the complaint. He submits that only after coming to know about filing of the divorce petition by the petitioner, the complaint was filed a counter-blast. He further submits that the complaint made exactly identical allegations against the parents of the petitioner as well as one Jaya but the said allegations have not been found to be substantiated because no cognizance was taken against them and the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to take cognizance against those persons has also been affirmed in revision. Learned counsel further submits that once the decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the petitioner on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent No. 2 complainant, then the continuance of the proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the petitioner can never be said to be justified. Learned counsel further submits that once the decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the petitioner on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent No. 2 complainant, then the continuance of the proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the petitioner can never be said to be justified. Learned counsel has flashed on the fact that the complainant initially challenged the ex.parte divorce decree but then withdrew her application for setting aside of the ex parte order because she was aware of the fact that the allegations of the petitioner leveled in the complaint could not be set at not. Thus, he prays that the proceedings against the petitioner in this complaint deserve to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 620 and prays for the proceedings going on against the petitioner, deserve to be quashed. 9. Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submit that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. should not be used for quashing the proceedings at the initial stage. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the proceedings placed on record of the instant misc. petition. A certified copy of the statement of the prosecution of the complaint recorded in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has also been placed on record, as per which the complainant has admitted that the decree of divorce between her and petitioner has been executed. 11. On a careful consideration of the allegations made in the complaint, it becomes apparent that the complainant even as per her admitted and highest allegations, has made allegations regarding the acts of the accused at Chennai. No act of cruelty has been alleged by the complainant to have taken place with her at Jaisalmer except a bald allegation that the petitioner and his parents came to Jaisalmer about 8-9 months prior to filing of the complaint and made a demand of motor cycle and two lakhs rupees. This allegation of the complainant has not been found to hold good because no cognizance was taken against the petitioner's parents in this matter. This allegation of the complainant has not been found to hold good because no cognizance was taken against the petitioner's parents in this matter. The said allegation obviously does not appeal to prudence. If at all, any such act had been committed by the accused, then there was no reason for the complainant to have waited for a period of fourteen months before filing of the complaint. The petitioner filed the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent at Chennai in February, 2007. Notices were issued to the respondent, and ultimately despite service, the respondent did not put in appearance in the said proceedings and the competent Court at Chennai has granted the decree of divorce to the petitioner on the ground that the respondent committed cruelty upon the petitioner. The complainant thereafter filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte decree and withdrew the same on 10.10.2010. 12. Another relevant fact which goes to the root of the matter is that the complainant admittedly came back to Jaisalmer from Chennai fourteen months prior to filing of the complaint, yet she chose to wait for this long period and there is no plausible explanation for this delay before the prosecution was launched. Thus, it is apparent that the complainant was marking time and when the petitioner filed the application for divorce, she too as a counter blast has filed the complaint for implicating the petitioner and her ' family members in the criminal matter. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyavrat Singh v. Shyam Ji Sahai reported in (2008) 8 SCC 232 has held that the proceedings for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. instituted after the divorce proceedings can be considered to be mala fide proceedings. In the case of Harrnanpreet Singh Ahluzualia (supra), also the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principles for exercising of powers in relation to the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations which the complainant made in the complaint were uniformly made against the petitioner as well as his parents and one Jaya. The said allegations have not been found to hold good by the trial Court qua the other accused and the revisional Court too has rejected the revision filed by the respondent praying for prosecution of the petitioner's parents and one Jaya Dangara. 14. The said allegations have not been found to hold good by the trial Court qua the other accused and the revisional Court too has rejected the revision filed by the respondent praying for prosecution of the petitioner's parents and one Jaya Dangara. 14. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the criminal prosecution of the petitioner in the impugned complaint for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Thus, the misc. petitioner succeeds and all further proceedings going on against the petitioner in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Case No. 110/2007 are hereby quashed.State petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******