Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 294 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-22

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J . - By way of this petition under section 482 CrPC, 1973 the petitioner herein has approached this court for challenging the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner in connection with FIR No.34/2014 registered at Mahila Police Station Bikaner taking cognizance against him for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC as affirmed by the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in revision. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondent complainant submitted an FIR at the Mahila Police Station, Bikaner on 14.12.2014 alleging inter alia that she was married to the present petitioner on 12.05.1998 in Village Patti Khurd, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawaimadhopur with Hindu rites and ceremonies. A son was born from the wedlock of the petitioner and the complainant, who is under the complainant's guardianship. The complainant alleged that right after her marriage, the petitioner and his family members started harassing and humiliating her on account of demand of dowry in form of cash and other valuables. In the year 2006, the petitioner thrashed the complainant and turned her out of the matrimonial home while retaining all her Stridhan articles. Upon this, the complainant was forced to live with her father at Delhi. The complainant's father tried to mediate and resolve the disputes which had arisen between the spouses, but his efforts proved futile. Citing the reason of inability to maintain herself and her son, the complainant filed an application under section 125 of the CrPC, 1973 in competent court at Delhi and by way of counter-blast, the petitioner Suresh Kumar allegedly filed numerous false cases against the complainant and her father at Rajasthan. The complainant came to know that the petitioner had contracted a second marriage with a widow named Anita Meena, resident of Bikaner. On coming to know of all these facts, she went to Bikaner and tried to enter the matrimonial home. However, her husband, the present petitioner, misbehaved with the complainant and threatened that she would not be allowed to step into the matrimonial home unless she brought a Skoda car and a huge cash amount from her father and until she withdrew the cases filed by her. However, her husband, the present petitioner, misbehaved with the complainant and threatened that she would not be allowed to step into the matrimonial home unless she brought a Skoda car and a huge cash amount from her father and until she withdrew the cases filed by her. On 13.12.2014, the complainant, her son Dhimant and her parents went to the office of the petitioner and tried to appease him, but the petitioner bluntly repelled their endeavour stating that his parents and his second wife were not agreeable to the proposal of their staying together and that in case, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs and a Skoda car were given to him, he could consider keeping the complainant and her son in the Village Bamanwas. However, he bluntly stated that only his second wife would reside with him. The complainant demanded return of her Stridhan artilces, but the petitioner Suresh Kumar outrightly refused. 3. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.34/2014 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences under Section 498, 406, 323 and 494 of the IPC at the Mahila Police Station, Bikaner. The Investigating Officer, while conducting investigation collected copies of the documents pertaining to numerous litigation pending inter se between the parties and upon a critical analysis thereof, it came to light that the complainant Shivangi was drawing a sum of Rs. 11,000/- per month from the petitioner as maintenance under the order passed by the competent court at Delhi under section 125 CrPC, 1973 and the petitioner was regularly making payment of the said maintenance amount. The accused petitioner had filed an application in the court of Civil Judge, Bamanwas for restitution of conjugal rights way back in the year 2007, however, the complainant filed an application in the Supreme Court and got the matter transferred to Delhi. The matrimonial rift was carried to the Meena community Panchayat, Bamanwas in the year 2011 at the petitioner's instance and the Panchayat customarily dissolved the marriage of the complainant and the petitioner by a resolution dated 27.02.2011. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Bamanwas praying that the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant may be declared as null and void in view of the Panchayat resolution/decision dated 27.02.2011. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Bamanwas praying that the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant may be declared as null and void in view of the Panchayat resolution/decision dated 27.02.2011. The said suit was contested by the complainant and the civil court decreed the suit on 10.11.2016. A copy of the judgment as well as the decree has been filed on record of this miscellaneous petition by the petitioner. 4. The police, after thorough investigation of the case, filed a negative final report in the matter with a conclusion that the complainant and the petitioner were living separately since long and no significant interaction took place between them from the year 2006 onwards. The complainant was getting maintenance to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- per month from the petitioner. The complainant tried to forcibly enter into the Government quarter of the petitioner, on which the petitioner lodged a criminal case against her, of which the competent court took cognizance. On these conclusions and recording that the offences alleged were not found to be proved against the petitioner, a negative final report was filed by the Investigating Officer in the court concerned. 5. Being aggrieved of the negative report, the respondent complainant submitted a protest petition, which came to be accepted by learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner by order dated 04.04.2016 and cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC. The said order taking cognizance was challenged by the petitioner by way of a revision, which was rejected as stated above, by the order dated 19.12.2016; hence, this miscellaneous petition. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Vivek Shrimali, representing the petitioner, vehemently urged that the proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner under the impugned orders amount to a gross abuse of process of law. He urged that the complainant is living separately from the petitioner from the year 2006 onwards when the matrimonial relations between the two turned sour. The petitioner tried his level best to restore the matrimony by filing an application for restitution of conjugal rights in the competent court at Bamanwas, Alwar but the complainant frustrated the said attempt of the petitioner by getting the proceedings transferred to Delhi. She filed an application under section 125 of the CrPC, 1973 and is drawing maintenance at the rate of Rs. She filed an application under section 125 of the CrPC, 1973 and is drawing maintenance at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per month for herself and for the minor son from the petitioner. The community Panchayat annulled the marriage of the petitioner and the complainant vide resolution dated 27.02.2011 as per the applicable usages and customs. Neither the complainant nor her representative appeared before the Panchayat despite receiving notice of the proceedings. The resolution of the Panchayat passed in accordance with the customs applicable to the parties received the seal of approval from the civil court in a contested civil suit, in which, a decree was passed holding the Panchayat's resolution to be valid and also dissolving marriage of the parties by judgment dated 10.11.2016. He, thus, urged that allowing continuance of these criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing short of a gross abuse of process of law and implored the court to quash and set aside the orders impugned. 7. Per contra, Mr. Sushil Solanki, learned counsel representing the respondent complainant vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by petitioner's counsel. He urged that the decision of the Panchayat has no sanctity in the eye of law and the marital status of the petitioner and the complainant still subsists. The petitioner, in addition to neglecting the complainant also harassed and humiliated her on account of demand of dowry. The complainant's father could not satisfy the unreasonable demands and greed of the accused and consequently, the complainant was beaten and turned out of the matrimonial home in the year 2006 and since then she is being forced to live a life of destitution. The petitioner managed to procure a manipulated decision of dissolution of marriage from the Panchayat. He further submitted that the Stridhan articles of the complainant were not returned to her despite repeated demands and as such, this court should not feel persuaded to exercise its inherent powers so as to interfere in the well-reasoned orders passed by the courts below. 8. I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the impugned orders and other documents placed on record. It is a common ground between the parties that the litigating spouses are living separately since the year 2006 onwards, when the complainant was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial home by the accused petitioner. It is a common ground between the parties that the litigating spouses are living separately since the year 2006 onwards, when the complainant was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial home by the accused petitioner. Though the complainant tried to portray in her highly belated FIR that she managed to re-enter the matrimonial home in the year 2012 and was again turned out, but the said allegation prima facie appears to be false and seems to have been concocted just with the aim of somehow justifying the highly belated and vindictive prosecution. Launched as late as in the year 2014. The fact regarding the marriage of the parties having been dissolved by the community Panchayat by way of a resolution dated 27.02.2011 on the basis of the customs applicable to them has received the stamp of approval with the judgment-cum-decree dated 10.11.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate, Bamanwas. Thus, ex facie this court is of the opinion that the highly belated FIR lodged by the complainant against the petitioner was filed with plain and simple intention of wreaking vengeance and nothing else. 9. Otherwise also, the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC carry a maximum sentence of 3 years. As per section 468 CrPC, 1973 the starting point for calculating limitation for a valid prosecution of such offences would begin from the last act of cruelty alleged to have been committed by the husband or his relatives on the wife. Admittedly, the complainant was turned out of her matrimonial home way back in the year 2006 and as a corollary thereto, the highly belated prosecution launched by the complainant in the year 2014 for the offences under Sections 498- A and 406 of the IPC is palpably bad in the eye of law as the same is hopelessly barred by limitation provided under section 468 of the CrPC, 1973. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down a cardinal principle in the case of Arun Vyas & Anr. vs. Anita Vyas reported in AIR 1999 SC 2071 that unless the delay is condoned by the court for valid reasons, prosecution for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC has to be governed by limitation provided under section 468 CrPC, 1973 which would start running from the last incident of cruelty allegedly committed on the wife. vs. Anita Vyas reported in AIR 1999 SC 2071 that unless the delay is condoned by the court for valid reasons, prosecution for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC has to be governed by limitation provided under section 468 CrPC, 1973 which would start running from the last incident of cruelty allegedly committed on the wife. As admittedly, in the case at hand, the spouses never resided together after the year 2006 as a necessary consequence, the last date of cruelty, if at all, would relate back to the said period; hence, the prosecution case, apart from being false, fabricated and malafide is also hopelessly barred by limitation. 11. The Investigating Officer conducted thorough investigation into the matter and gave a negative final report detailing strong grounds and assigning cogent reasons for discarding the complainant's case. Neither the trial court nor the revisional court adverted to these conclusions and findings while considering the matter and failed to adjudicate the issues in the correct perspective. 12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this court is duly satisfied with the argument advanced by Mr. Shrimali, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the prosecution lodged by the complainant against the petitioner by way of the FIR registered at the Mahila Police Station, Bikaner in the year 2014 amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. 13. As a consequence of the above discussion, the instant miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 04.04.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner, whereby cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and so also the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in revision affirming the Magistrate's order and all proceedings sought to be taken thereunder, against the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside.