Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 168 (RAJ)

Kamalendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-20

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the FIR No.201/14 of Police Station Women, Udaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned FIR registered at Police Station, Women, Udaipur is without jurisdiction as the Police Station, Women, Udaipur and the court concern have no jurisdiction to act upon the same. It is contended that the complainant has alleged in the FIR that her in-laws have harassed her and demanding dowry at Jalore only and from this, it is clear that no incident has taken place at Udaipur and, therefore, the impugned FIR lodged at Udaipur is not maintainable and on this ground alone, the same is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chenni & Anr. reported in 2004 Crl.L.J. 4180 and judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kishan Lal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2005 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1439. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in the complaint, omnibus allegations have been levelled against the accused persons whereas, in fact, no such incident, as alleged in the FIR, has ever happened. It is also argued that the tendency of involving all member of in-laws family is growing and the Hon'ble Apex Court has also deprecated the said tendency in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another reported in 2014 Cri.L.J. 3707. 5. On the strength of above arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned FIR. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have argued that the impugned FIR lodged at Udaipur is maintainable as the petitioner has also harassed the complainant at Udaipur. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has informed this Court that investigation into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR has almost been concluded and the police, after thorough investigation, has found prima facie case against the petitioner only and the other relatives of the petitioner have not been found involved in the commission of offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has informed this Court that investigation into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR has almost been concluded and the police, after thorough investigation, has found prima facie case against the petitioner only and the other relatives of the petitioner have not been found involved in the commission of offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR. 9. In the FIR, the complainant has alleged that on 29th of September, 2008, a son was born to her at Udaipur and at that time, her husband along with one of his brother came to Udaipur and abused her and manhandled her in her father's house. It is also alleged in the FIR that at present, the respondent No.2 is residing in her father's house at Udaipur and her husband is threatening her on telephone with dire consequences if she files any complaint before the police. 10. From bare reading of FIR, it is clear that the complainant has narrated the incident of Udaipur where the petitioner abused and manhandled her. It is also clear that the petitioner is regularly threatening the complainant on telephone in Udaipur. 11. From the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner is guilty of committing offence at Udaipur too and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned FIR against the petitioner is maintainable in Udaipur also. 12. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. (supra) and the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kishan Lal & Anr. (supra) are concerned, it is noticed that in those cases, the complainants had not alleged about happening of any incident at the place where FIR was lodged and, therefore, the facts of these cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 13. The police, after investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR, has found prima facie case against the petitioner, who is husband of the complainant and has found that other family members are not involved in the commission of crime, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) is also not applicable in the present case. 14. In view of above discussions, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition. 14. In view of above discussions, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. The factual report dated 4.01.2015 be taken on record.Petition dismissed. *******