Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 740 (JK)

Mamta Devi v. State of J&K

2017-08-25

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.175/2010 dated 21.08.2010 registered at Police Station Bhaderwah under Section 366 RPC. 2. In the petition, it is stated that respondent No.3 is the husband and respondent No.2 is the father-in-law of the petitioner. The marriage of petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.3 as per Hindu Vivah Paditi, customs and rituals. Out of the said wedlock two children are born, who are reading in Vidya Mandir School, Sartingal. It is the convulsion of the nature and the apathy of the circumstances that the husband and in-laws of the petitioner, whereas on one hand are very cruel, barbaric and dowry mongers on the other hand are very lecherous and disgraceful also, who always remain ready to bulge for even petty gains and favours even at the cost of their honour and character. This all was not acceptable to the petitioner and the petitioner neither liked nor ever compromised with such disgraceful mentality and way of living of the private respondents. It is also contended that the petitioner used to tolerate and bear all the violations and violence in the family silently because of the minor children. The private respondents always used to compel the petitioner to agree for mutual divorce and leave the matrimonial house once for all, which the petitioner did not agree in the larger interest of the children, and kept on bearing the cruelties being inflicted by the private respondents and other members of their family. Ultimately by crossing all the limits of indecency and ruthlessness the private respondents in a most barbaric and disgraceful manner on 18.08.2010 hounded the petitioner from her matrimonial house with an open warning and threatening that in case she again enters in the house she will be done to death and eliminated. It is further contended that whole this action of private respondents was pre-planned and with the connivance of the local police. On 22.08.2010, as is evident from the verification a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act 1980 for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 came to be drafted. It is further contended that whole this action of private respondents was pre-planned and with the connivance of the local police. On 22.08.2010, as is evident from the verification a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act 1980 for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 came to be drafted. The main ground alleged for the decree of divorce in para No.5 of the said petition has been averred as under:- “(5) That in the year 2010 the petitioner had kidnapped by Vikas Sharma S/o Rajinder Sharma R/o Kapra Tehsil Bhadarwah-----------------afterwards the respondent was having illicit relations with the said Vikas Sharma and used to visit the house of said Vikas Sharma. That on 18.08.2010 the respondent took cash of Rs.67,000/- and along with ornaments costing rupees two lacs from the house of the petitioner in the absence of the petitioner and has been kidnapped by the said Vikas Sharma------------------” 3. Although this Divorce petition came to be drafted and verified on 22.08.2010, but the same was instituted in the Court of learned District Judge on 21.09.2010, a month thereafter. It is further contended that the petitioner is 24 years of age having two school going children. She does not know any Vishal Sharma or Vikas Sharma, nor has anybody kidnapped her on 18.08.2010 or before or after that. She fully knows her good and bad and is capable of taking her care and think about her good or bad. In FIR, the complainant avers that some Vishal Sharma has kidnapped the petitioner, but in the divorce petition there is allegation of kidnapping by one Vikas Sharma and stealing of Rs.67,000/- cash and jewellery of Rs.2.00 lacs. This all speaks volumes about the intentions of the private respondents to defame and disgrace the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the FIR No. 175/2010 registered at Police Station Bhadarwah under Section 366 RPC may kindly be quashed. 4. This Court vide order dated 10.10.2010, issued notice to the respondents for filing objections and in the meantime stayed the proceedings in FIR No.175/2010 registered at Police Station Bhaderwah under Section 366 RPC. 5. It is, therefore, prayed that the FIR No. 175/2010 registered at Police Station Bhadarwah under Section 366 RPC may kindly be quashed. 4. This Court vide order dated 10.10.2010, issued notice to the respondents for filing objections and in the meantime stayed the proceedings in FIR No.175/2010 registered at Police Station Bhaderwah under Section 366 RPC. 5. On 17.07.2017 objections have been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 wherein it is stated that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No.175/2010 registered at Police Station, Bhaderwah under Section 366 RPC lodged by respondent No.2 on 21.08.2010 with regard to alleged abduction of the petitioner by one Vishal Sharma. It is further stated that as per the complaint filed by respondent No.2, his daughter-in-law namely Mamta Devi went in the morning to drop her two children to Vidhya Bharti Mandir School however, she did not return till the evening. The children were brought home from school and upon inquiry it was revealed that one Yash Pal Sharma S/o Rajinder Singh R/o Khurshari had enticed his daughter-in-law and abducted her. Upon this the above referred FIR was lodged in the police Station and the investigation in the matter was entrusted to Mohd Shabir ASI. The I.O visited the spot, inspected the same, prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of witness’s u/s 161 Cr.P.C. While investigation was going one, order dated 18.10.2010 was received from this Court wherein directions had been issued for staying the investigation in the FIR as such further investigation could not be continued. An affidavit was given by the petitioner, attested by the 1st Class Judicial Magistrate Bhaderwah wherein she has stated that she had married to respondent No.3 and out of their wedlock two children had been born. Respondent No.3 used to ill treat the petitioner and beat her and torture her in connection with dowry demand. On 15.08.2010 she was beaten by her husband badly as such she had left her matrimonial home as she wanted to live free life away from the ill-treatment and torture of her in laws and her husband. The petitioner further stated that her father-in-law had lodged a false FIR and she had not been abducted by anyone. She had further stated that on 06.12.2010 her husband i.e respondent No.3 had divorced her in accordance with the customary laws. The petitioner further stated that her father-in-law had lodged a false FIR and she had not been abducted by anyone. She had further stated that on 06.12.2010 her husband i.e respondent No.3 had divorced her in accordance with the customary laws. In view of the facts of the case, the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the investigation conducted in the matter, it became clear that respondent No.2 had lodged a false FIR against Vikas Sharma S/o Rajinder Sharma. It was clear that nobody had abducted the petitioner but she had gone on her own freewill from her marital home to her relatives at Jammu and after being divorced by her husband-respondent No.3, she had married Vikas Sharma S/o Rajinder Sharma and from that marriage the petitioner now has two children. In light of the aforesaid circumstances and the investigation conducted in the FIR had been concluded and as per Final Report No.15 dated 26.12.2015 as not proved and closure report submitted. 6. So as per respondent/ State, the investigation of case has been stand closed as not proved because petitioner herein, the victim in FIR No.175/2010 dated 21.08.2010 registered at Police Station Bhaderwah under Section 366 RPC, furnished an affidavit that nobody had abducted her but she had gone on her own freewill from her marital home to her relatives at Jammu and after being divorced by her husband-respondent No.3, she had married Vikas Sharma S/o Rajinder Sharma and from that marriage the petitioner now has two children. 7. In view of above, this petition has become infructuous. The same is disposed of having rendered infructuous.