Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 246 (RAJ)

Rajpal son of Shri Amararam v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-18

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
ORDER : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner Rajpal has approached this court for assailing the FIR No.146/2016 registered at Police Station Kesarisinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar and all consequential proceedings thereof. 2. Heard and appreciated the arguments advanced at bar and perused the impugned FIR and the Investigating Officer's factual report. 3. It is an admitted position as emerging from record that the petitioner was married to Smt. Pooja (deceased) about 16 to 17 years ago. The matrimonial relations became constrained and Smt. Pooja started living separately from the petitioner in the year 2005. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was decreed, but despite that Smt. Pooja did not go to the matrimonial home. She filed an application under Section 125 CrPC against the petitioner in the year 2009, wherein the petitioner was directed to make any payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1400/-per month to the deceased as well as her minor child. However, the petitioner appears to have not honoured the said order and failed to make any payment of maintenance amount to the deceased. The deceased is claimed to have information regarding the petitioner having re-married, whereupon she became perturbed and ended her life by jumping in the canal. 4. Learned counsel Mr. G.R. Bhari vehemently urged that even if the admitted allegations as set out in the impugned FIR are accepted to be true on the face of record, manifestly, the same do not reveal necessary ingredients so as to bring home the offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was not in touch with the deceased for the last more than ten years because the relations between the spouses were strained. Even in the FIR, it is alleged that the deceased came to know few days before the incident that the petitioner had married another woman and that a boy had also been born from the said liaison. Being perturbed by the said information, she ended her life. He, thus, urged that the so called second marriage of the petitioner may give rise to offence of bigamy, but by no stretch of imagination, would such an act, even if substantiated, constitute necessary ingredients of abetment/instigation given to the deceased for committing suicide. Being perturbed by the said information, she ended her life. He, thus, urged that the so called second marriage of the petitioner may give rise to offence of bigamy, but by no stretch of imagination, would such an act, even if substantiated, constitute necessary ingredients of abetment/instigation given to the deceased for committing suicide. He, thus, implored the court to quash the impugned FIR as the same amounts to a gross abuse of process of law. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Gupta, representing the complainant, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and contended that the petitioner had turned the deceased out of the matrimonial home 10 years after treating her cruelly. On the fateful day, the deceased received information of the petitioner having re-married and thus, she lost all hope of resumption of her matrimony with the petitioner and was left with no option, but to end her own life. He, thus, submits that indirectly the petitioner is responsible for instigating the deceased Smt. Pooja to commit suicide. 6. I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. It is admitted position from the FIR itself that the spouses had broken their relationship for last 10 years and were living separately. The deceased had been awarded maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC in the year 2010. The uncle of the deceased expired two months before the incident and the relatives, who came to offer condolences allegedly informed Smt. Pooja that Rajpal had remarried. On receiving this information, Smt. Pooja became perturbed and ended her life. Manifestly, the act of suicide was not a direct culmination of any instigation/abetment having been offered by the petitioner, but as a fall out of the news received by Smt. Pooja about the second marriage, but there is no verification of this fact on record. Furthermore, even if it is assumed for a moment that the petitioner remarried after ditching his first wife, then such an act would amount to an offence of bigamy, but by no stretch of imagination, can it be construed to be instigation given to the deceased for committing suicide. Manifestly, the deceased was forced to live alone after having been left by the petitioner for the last 10 years. Manifestly, the deceased was forced to live alone after having been left by the petitioner for the last 10 years. She could not face the difficult circumstances and ended her life. Thus, the prosecution in this case for the offence under Section 306 IPC is nothing short of gross abuse of process of law. 7. Hence, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No.146/2016 registered at Police Station Kesarisinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar and all consequential proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are quashed. 8. In view of the above discussion, the instant miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No. 146/2016 registered at Police Station Kesarisinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar and all consequential proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioner are hereby quashed.