Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 210 (RAJ)

Shokat Ali v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-23

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.83/2014 dated 06.11.2014 of Police Station, Mahila, District Churu for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC qua the petitioner. 2. The complainant-respondent No.2 has lodged the impugned FIR while claiming that her marriage was solemnised on 02.04.2002 at village Ghanghu Tehsil and District Churu with Mohammed Ismail S/o Mohammed Abbas. At the time of her marriage, number of gold ornaments were given by her father weighing about 62 Tolas and gold ornaments weighing 23 Tolas by her in-laws were also given. It is further alleged that the other dowry items such as Utensils, Television, Double Bed, Refrigerator, Sofa Set, Dining Table, Washing Machine etc. were also given to her and all the said dowry items along with gold ornaments were handed over to her husband Mohammed Ismail, elder brother-in-laws Mohammed Raffiq and Mohammed Umar and uncle-in-law petitioner-Mohammed Shokat Ali. It is also narrated in the impugned FIR that after her marriage, the husband of the complainant-respondent No.2 used to ill-treat her and the elder brothers-in-law and sister-in-law used to demand dowry from time to time. It is also alleged by the complainant-respondent No.2 in the impugned FIR that her husband went to Dubai and later on, she also joined him at Dubai and resided with him but her husband was constantly demanding dowry from her. It is also alleged in the impugned FIR that during regular intervals, on account of demand of dowry, she was called by her father to India and every time her in-laws had requested her father to send the complainant-respondent No.2 to Dubai with the promise that they will never ill-treat her in future. In the impugned FIR, it is specifically alleged that on 09.05.2005, she returned to India due to ill-treatment and after one year, the petitioner came to her father's house and informed that her husband is injured so she should take care of him, however, when her father complained the petitioner about the ill-treatment given to his daughter, the petitioner assured her father that she would never be ill-treated and the petitioner has specifically said that her ornaments are lying with him. In the impugned FIR, several incidents have been narrated in respect of ill-treatment given to the complainant-respondent No.2 by other co-accused persons. In the impugned FIR, several incidents have been narrated in respect of ill-treatment given to the complainant-respondent No.2 by other co-accused persons. However, against the petitioner, it is alleged that her ornaments are lying with him but he is not returning the same despite specific demand. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegations against the petitioner in the impugned FIR are only omnibus and constitute no offences. It is further contended that the petitioner is Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and lives in Dubai since 1993 and he has nothing to do with the dispute between the complainant-respondent No.2 and her in-laws. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is distant relative of husband of the complainant-respondent No.2 and he, in no manner, can be held responsible for ill-treatment to her and misappropriation of her Stridhan. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme in Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo reported in (2011) 6 SCC 479 , in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and in Chandralekha & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in (2013) 14 SCC 374 , and has argued that where the allegations are general in nature, extremely vague and reckless and no specific role is attributed against any person in an FIR relating to some matrimonial dispute, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceedings including the FIR against the said person. It is reiterated by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the bare reading of contents of the FIR, it is clear that allegations against the petitioner are general in nature and extremely vague and no specific role is attributed to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned FIR against the petitioner be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 have argued that in the impugned FIR it is clearly alleged that the dowry items including gold ornaments belonging to the complainant-respondent No.2 were handed over to the petitioner along with other co-accused persons. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 have argued that in the impugned FIR it is clearly alleged that the dowry items including gold ornaments belonging to the complainant-respondent No.2 were handed over to the petitioner along with other co-accused persons. It is also argued on behalf of the complainant-respondent No.2 that in the impugned FIR, specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner that he has admitted that the gold ornaments belonging to the complainant-respondent No.2 are lying with him and when the complainant-respondent No.2 and her father have demanded to return of the Stridhan of complainant-respondent No.2, the petitioner has refused to return the same. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 has also invited attention of this Court towards the representation filed by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Churu on 15.01.2014, wherein it is mentioned that during the course of investigation, the petitioner in presence of SHO, Police Station, Mahila, District Churu has admitted on phone from Dubai that 31 Tola of gold ornaments belonging to the complainant-respondent No.2 are lying with him. It is also contended that in the said representation it is also mentioned that the petitioner has sent Whats App messages while admitting that 31 Tola gold ornaments belonging to the complainant-respondent No.2 are lying with him. On the strength of above arguments learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 argued that the allegations regarding misappropriation of the Stridhan are against the petitioner, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is not liable to be granted. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR. 8. From the bare reading of the contents of the impugned FIR, it is clear that the petitioner is the real uncle of the husband of the complainant-respondent No.2. It is clearly stated in the FIR that at the time of marriage of the complainant-respondent No.2 with Mohammed Ismail S/o Mohammed Abbas, the petitioner was present in the marriage and the dowry items as well as the gold ornaments were handed over to him and other co-accused persons by father of the complainant-respondent No.2. It is also mentioned in the impugned FIR that somewhere in the year 2006, the petitioner had visited the house of the father of the complainant-respondent No.2 and had admitted that the gold ornaments belonging to the complainant-respondent No.2 are lying with him. It is also mentioned in the impugned FIR that somewhere in the year 2006, the petitioner had visited the house of the father of the complainant-respondent No.2 and had admitted that the gold ornaments belonging to the complainant-respondent No.2 are lying with him. In the last portion of the impugned FIR, it is mentioned that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons have refused to return the Stridhan of the complainant-respondent No.2. 9. From the case diary, it is emerged that the petitioner is aware about the dispute between the complainant-respondent No.2 and her husband and some of the gold ornaments belonging to the complainant-respondent No.2 are lying with him. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a distant relative of the husband of the complainant-respondent No.2 is not acceptable as he is a real uncle of the husband of the complainant-respondent No.2 and both are residing in Dubai since long and it cannot be assumed that the petitioner has no knowledge about the dispute between the complainant-respondent No.2 and her husband or has no relation with the complainant-respondent No.2 or her family. 11. It is a matter of investigation whether the petitioner has misappropriated the Stridhan of the complainant-respondent No.2, which as per the allegations in the FIR, has been entrusted to him along with other co-accused persons at the time of marriage of the complainant-respondent No.2. The allegations levelled in the impugned FIR require investigation and after detail investigation only, the role of the petitioner will be ascertained. 12. The judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner as in the present case, specific role has been assigned to the petitioner and allegations against him are also not vague, therefore, the same has no application in the facts of the present case. 13. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition and the same is here by dismissed.Stay petition also stands dismissed.The factual report dated 22.1.2015 b e taken on record.Petition allowed. *******