Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 630 (RAJ)

Gurubachan Kaur v. State of Rajasthan

2016-05-05

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. By this Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 CrPC, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District, Hanumangarh (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision Petition No.54/2011 preferred on behalf of the petitioners and one Satnam Singh, whereby the revisional court has dismissed the said revision petition. In the said revision petition, the petitioners had challenged the order dated 11.07.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Case No.78/2010, whereby the trial court ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioners along with Satvindra Singh for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC. 2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this criminal misc. petition, are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the trial court on 15.02.2010, inter alia, alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with Sativindra Singh, resident of Manko, Tehsil Adampur, District Jalandhar, Punjab on 08.03.1991 as per Sikh Rituals at Rawatsar. It is alleged by the complainant that in the said marriage, dowry was given by her father and immediately after the marriage, she started living at Rawatsar with the family of the maternal uncle of Satvindra Singh. It was alleged that from the day one of the marriage, the accused-persons were not happy with her and used to taunt her on account of less dowry given by her father and started harassing her. After a year, the complainant and her husband started living at village Manko in Punjab, however, the uncle and aunt of the husband of the complainant used to visit Manko and instigate her husband to extract money from the father of the complainant for the purpose of constructing a house. It is further alleged that whenever the complainant raised objection about the behaviour of uncle, aunt and cousin of her husband, they used to beat her. She has also alleged that from the loin of Satvindra Singh two children, one male and one female born and at the time of birth of issues, her father gave dowry but the accused-persons were not satisfied with that and continuously harassed her. She has further alleged that her husband asked her to bring Rs.3,00,000/- from her father but when she refused to it, he told her that he would not keep her with him. She has further alleged that her husband asked her to bring Rs.3,00,000/- from her father but when she refused to it, he told her that he would not keep her with him. It is further alleged that about 20 days back, the husband of the complainant took her to Rawatsar and left her there and when she asked him that he should accompany to her father, then her husband became angry and after beating her, ran away from there. She has further alleged that about 10 days before, her father took her to Manko and requested her husband to keep her with him but he demanded Rs.3,00,000/-, therefore, her father returned back. She has prayed that the accused-persons have committed the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 323 IPC, therefore, the action be taken against them. 3. The said complaint was sent by the trial court to the Police Station, Rawatsar and FIR No.91/2010 was registered against the petitioner and two other persons viz. Satvindra Singh and Satnam Singh. 4. During the course of investigation, compromise was arrived at between the accused-persons and respondent No.2 and the police while taking note of this fact, submitted F.R. No.24 dated 30.04.2010 in the trial court while concluding that Satvindra Singh - husband of the respondent No.2 went abroad in the year 2009 and after returning back, when he enquired about the money spent by the complainant, then a dispute arose between them for which the husband of the complainant had filed a complaint at the Police Station, Adampur, Punjab and in counter to that, the complainant has filed a false complaint against the accused-persons. However, the complainant had filed a protest petition before the trial court, wherein her statements were recorded in support of the protest petition. In her statement, the complainant has alleged that after the compromise arrived at between her and the accused-persons, she was kept in captivity for 15 days and was not given food and her husband used to beat her. She has further alleged that her husband got three blank cheques signed by her and also got signed few stamp papers. 5. In her statement, the complainant has alleged that after the compromise arrived at between her and the accused-persons, she was kept in captivity for 15 days and was not given food and her husband used to beat her. She has further alleged that her husband got three blank cheques signed by her and also got signed few stamp papers. 5. Learned trial court, after taking into consideration the material available on record, particularly the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded during the police investigation under section 161 CrPC, has ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioners along with Satvindra Singh – husband of the complainant for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC vide order dated 11.07.2011. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioners had preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the revisional court vide order dated 11.06.2012 has dismissed the said revision petition and confirmed the order dated 11.07.2011 passed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are residing at Chak 18, DWD, Rawatsar but from the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded during the proceedings, it is clear that whatever the incident of demand of dowry etc. has been alleged, that had occurred in village Manko, Tehsil Adampur, District Jalandhar and not in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Rawatsar or the jurisdiction of the trial court. It is further submitted that the trial court has not taken into consideration this fact and illegally ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC. It is also argued that even from the statements of the complainant recorded during the course of police investigation as well as before the trial court in support of the protest petition, no offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, and 323 IPC is made out against the petitioners as the complainant has not stated that when the petitioners demanded dowry from her. It is further argued that at the most the allegation against the petitioners is to the effect that they used to instigate the husband of the complainant for committing the offence but no offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC is made out against them. 7. It is further argued that at the most the allegation against the petitioners is to the effect that they used to instigate the husband of the complainant for committing the offence but no offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC is made out against them. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the police while submitting the negative final report, came to the specific conclusion that there was some dispute between the complainant and her husband regarding the money spent by the complainant and when her husband lodged a police complaint at Punjab against the complainant, she has filed the false FIR against the accused-persons in counter to that but the trial court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC in illegal manner. It is also argued that once the complainant entered into a compromise with the petitioners and her husband, the courts below without considering this aspect of the matter have illegally passed the impugned orders. 8. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the impugned orders may kindly be set aside and the petitioners may be discharged. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 have supported the impugned orders and submitted that the courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders because enough material is available on record against the petitioners for taking cognizance. 10. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned orders. 11. In the complaint filed by the complainant, the allegations against the petitioners is only to the effect that they used to instigate the husband of the complainant for demanding money from the complainant or her father and when the complainant objected, they used to beat her up. As per the complaint, the incident of beating her up had taken place at village Manko, Tehsil Adampur, District Jalandhar, Punjab. The omnibus allegations of demanding money and assault have been levelled against all the persons named in the complaint, however, no specific date and time has been given to the said incident in the complaint. As per the complaint, the incident of beating her up had taken place at village Manko, Tehsil Adampur, District Jalandhar, Punjab. The omnibus allegations of demanding money and assault have been levelled against all the persons named in the complaint, however, no specific date and time has been given to the said incident in the complaint. In her statement recorded under section 161 CrPC, the complainant has simply alleged that the uncle and aunt of her husband used to instigate her husband for demanding money from her father, however, no specific incident regarding assault has been mentioned in those statements. 12. It is to be noticed that during the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of father of the complainant, her uncle, children of the complainant. All the witnesses have specifically stated that there was dispute between the complainant and the petitioners in relation to the money spent by her when her husband was living abroad and in relation to that, husband of the complainant filed a police complaint in Punjab and in counter to that, the complainant has filed the FIR against the petitioners alleging demand of dowry, breach of trust and voluntarily causing hurt. None of the witnesses in his/her police statement, has alleged that the petitioners ever demanded dowry from the complainant or assaulted her. The children of the complainant have specifically stated in their statements that a dispute arose between their mother and father and on account of that, their mother went to Rawatsar, and their father neither harassed their mother for dowry not assaulted her at any point of time. Even in the statement of the complainant recorded in support of the protest petition, no specific allegation of demand of dowry or voluntarily causing hurt specifying date and time of the incident, has been levelled against the petitioners. 13. It is further noticed that the petitioners are distinct relatives of the complainant and are also residing at Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, whereas the complainant was residing in village Manko, Tehsil Adampur, District Jalandhar and looking to this fact also, it can be presumed that the allegations of demanding dowry, breach of trust and voluntarily causing hurt against the petitioners are false. 14. 14. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the material available on record, particularly the material collected by the police during the course of police investigation as well as the evidence produced by the complainant in support of her protest petition, this Court is of the opinion that no material is available on record to take cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC and the trial court has erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 15. Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the orders dated 11.06.2012 and 11.07.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh respectively qua the petitioners are set aside.