Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 307 (RAJ)

Roopesh v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-01-24

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 07/2019 registered at Police Station Neemrana, Alwar for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 498A IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent aggrieved wife had earlier also lodged FIR and in the said FIR, Final Report in negative form was submitted and the same was also accepted by the court of Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that thereafter, respondent aggrieved wife had not joined the matrimonial home and the petitioner No. 1 had filed a divorce petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after filing of the divorce petition, on same set of allegations, respondent aggrieved wife has lodged the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that second FIR is not permissible. 4. I have perused the record with the assistance rendered by the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. A perusal of the record reveals that earlier compromise was affected between the parties and the respondent aggrieved wife before the Lok Adalat stated that she no longer intends to pursue the FIR. As to why the compromise was not adhered to, is a disputed question of fact. Therefore, once the compromise was not adhered, the respondent wife was compelled to lodge the FIR. 6. Taking into account that in earlier FIR no meaningful investigation was carried and negative final report filed therein was accepted by the court of Magistrate on the basis of compromise, it cannot be said that the present FIR is bad in the eyes of law. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is dismissed qua petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. 8. However, considering the age and relationship of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant, their personal appearance before the trial court is exempted subject to following conditions:- (a) That the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 shall file an undertaking before the trial court that they shall appear before the trial court at the time of framing of charges, recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of delivery of the judgment. (b) That in the undertaking filed the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 shall file an undertaking before the trial court that they shall appear before the trial court at the time of framing of charges, recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of delivery of the judgment. (b) That in the undertaking filed the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 shall specifically state that any evidence recorded in their absence, but in presence of their counsel, shall be binding upon them. (c) That the accused petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 shall also undertake to appear before the trial court as and when called by the trial Judge. (d) It is further ordered that upon appearance of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 before the trial court, the trial court shall accept regular bail bonds of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 alongwith bonds to be furnished by the sureties to its satisfaction and the personal regular bail bonds furnished by the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and bonds to be furnished by the sureties shall enure during the pendency of the trial. 9. Petitioner No. 4 is elder brother of husband (Jeth) of the complainant, whereas petitioner No. 5 is wife of petitioner No. 4 (Jethani) and petitioner No. 6 is sister of husband (Nanad) of the complainant. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, 2010 AIR 3363 to contend that all relations have been implicated for the offences under Sections 498A IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 have nothing to gain from the alleged demand of dowry. 11. Issue notice to the respondents qua petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 only for 25.3.2019. 12. List this case on 25.3.2019. Meanwhile, further proceedings only qua petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 arising out of impugned FIR shall remain stayed.