Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 257 (RAJ)

Swati D/o Bhanwar Nak Singh v. Abhimanu Singh

2017-01-20

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 09.02.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the 'revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No. 6/2014, whereby the revision petition preferred on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been partly allowed and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were discharged from the commission of offence punishable under Section 406/34 IPC. The revisional court has also discharged respondent No.2 from the commission of offence punishable under Section 323/34 of IPC, however, the revisional court has refused to discharge the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 323/34 IPC and has also refused to discharge the respondent No.2 from the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed the said revision petition against the order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.3 (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') in Criminal Case No.189/2011, whereby the trial court framed charges against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323/34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a written complaint filed by the petitioner, an FIR No.76/2011 has been registered at Women Police Station, Bikaner against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and one Ganpat Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323/34 of IPC. The police after thorough investigation in to the allegations levelled in the FIR has filed charge-sheet against respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ganpat Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323/34 of IPC before the trial court. 3. The trial court framed charges against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ganpat Singh for the aforesaid offences. In the meantime, Ganpat Singh died and only respondent Nos.1 to 3 remained accused before the trial court and the trial court vide order dated 04.04.2014 ordered for framing charges against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323/34 of IPC. 4. In the meantime, Ganpat Singh died and only respondent Nos.1 to 3 remained accused before the trial court and the trial court vide order dated 04.04.2014 ordered for framing charges against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323/34 of IPC. 4. Being aggrieved with the same, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have preferred revision petition before the revisional court and revisional court vide order dated 09.02.2015 has discharged the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 406 of IPC and has also discharged the respondent No.2 from the offences punishable under Section 323 of IPC. Being aggrieved with the same, respondent No.2 has filed this criminal misc. petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the revisional court has grossly erred in discharging the accused respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 406 of IPC and has also erred in discharging the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. It is submitted that sufficient evidence is available against the respondents for framing of charges against them for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 of IPC, however, the revisional court without appreciating the evidence available on record in right prospective has illegally interfered with the order passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore prayed that the impugned order passed by the revisional court may be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Public Prosecutor have supported the order passed by the revisional court and submitted that there is no evidence available on record connect the respondent Nos.1 to 3 with the commission of crime for the offences punishable under Section 406 of IPC. It is also argued that as no evidence is available on record to connect respondent No.2 with commission of crime under Section 323 of IPC, the trial court has rightly discharged her from the said offence. It is further submitted that the revisional court has not committed any illegality in discharging the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the said offences. 7. It is further submitted that the revisional court has not committed any illegality in discharging the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the said offences. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has also argued that as a matter of fact, the revisional court has grossly erred in not discharging the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and, therefore, respondent No.2 has already filed a separate petition which is pending before this Court. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below as well as the material available on record. 9. The revisional court has taken into consideration the fact that earlier also in the month of January, 2011, the petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ganpat Singh levelling allegation of harassment of dowry and criminal breach of trust and in the said complaint, compromise was arrived at between the parties which was verified by the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 on 12.01.2011 and in the said written compromise, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has received her all Stridhan from the private respondents. 10. The revisional court has further observed that thereafter in May 2011, again the petitioner has filed a complaint of similar nature against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 levelling allegations of harassment for dowry, breach of trust and mis-appropriation of Stridhan. The revisional court has observed that in the complaint filed by the petitioner before the court concerned in May, 2011, she has nowhere alleged that after the compromise arrived at between her and the respondent Nos.1 to 3, she had entrusted her Stridhan to the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The revisional court was of the opinion that when in January, 2011, the Stridhan of the petitioner was handed over to her and thereafter there is no evidence that the said Stridhan was not entrusted by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 again. It cannot be said that the respondent Nos.1 top 3 are guilty of commission of offence of mis-appropriation of her Stridhan or criminal breach of trust, therefore, the trial court has erred in framing charges against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 406 of IPC. It cannot be said that the respondent Nos.1 top 3 are guilty of commission of offence of mis-appropriation of her Stridhan or criminal breach of trust, therefore, the trial court has erred in framing charges against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 406 of IPC. The revisional court has also taken into consideration the fact that there is no allegation against the respondent No.2 that after the compromise arrived at between the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the petitioner on 12.01.2011, the respondents had ever caused voluntarily hurt to the petitioner, therefore there is no evidence available against respondent No.2 for framing of charge for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. 11. After going through the impugned orders passed by the courts below as well as the statements of the witnesses examined during the course of trial and the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the revisional court has not committed any illegality in discharging the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC and the respondent NO.2 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. Hence, this criminal misc. petition being bereft of force is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.