Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 947 (RAJ)

ASHOK BENIWAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2018-04-06

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.609/2014 registered at the Police Station Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar and all consequential proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondent complainant Smt. Rameshwari lodged an FIR No.267/2013 against the petitioner Ashok and few others with the allegation of demand of dowry, harassment, etc. While investigation of the FIR is still being continued, the present FIR came to be lodged through a complaint filed by the complainant Rameshwari and her brother Hansraj with an allegation that Hansraj purchased a new car bearing No.RJ-13- C-4171 and gifted the same to the petitioner. The car's registration stood in the name of Hansraj. The accused Ashok requested Hansraj to transfer the car to his name and since the relations between the parties were cordial at that time, the complainant signed and gave the required forms to Ashok for getting the registration of the car transferred in his name. In the meantime, the relations between the parties fell out and the FIR No.267/2013 was registered against Ashok Beniwal. During investigation of the said FIR, the complainant came to know that Ashok had sold the car to somebody else and had also transferred the documents thereof to that person. The petitioner Ashok has sought quashing of the said FIR on the ground that it is a second FIR on the same facts and further with a specific assertion that registration of car continues in the name of the complainant Hansraj and that it is lying in Rameswhari's house at Hisar and that the FIR has been lodged with sheer malafide and ulterior motive. 3. Shri Kharlia, learned Sr. Counsel representing the petitioner urged that ex-facie, in view of the fact that an earlier FIR for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC had been registered against the petitioner at the instance of the complainant, registration of the second FIR for the same offence during the pendency of the earlier one is totally unjustified and amounts to a gross abuse of process of law. 4. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Matoria learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and urged that the petitioner not only fraudulently retained the gifted car, the registration whereof stands in the name of the complainant Hansraj but has sold and transferred the documents thereof to some other person unauthorisedly and as such, no interference should be made in the FIR at its inception. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that Smt. Rameshwari filed an earlier FIR No.267/2013 against Ashok and Others for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC the investigation whereof is still pending and which has been ordered to be transferred to Hisar by an order passed today in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2416/2013. Thus, if at all the disputed car constitutes an article of dowry and has been misappropriated then manifestly, the investigation of this allegation would have to be made in the earlier FIR only and registration of a second FIR is not permissible and warranted on the same allegations as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others., (2001) 6 SCC 181 . Furthermore, as per the factual report received by this Court in connection with the previous FIR No.267/2013, it is manifest that the registration of the car still stands in the name of Shri Hansraj. Thus also, allowing continuation of the impugned FIR which is patently based on a conjectural allegation would amount to gross abuse of process of law. 7. Thus, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No.609/2014 registered at the Police Station Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar and all consequential proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioner are hereby quashed.