Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 410 (RAJ)

Raju Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2019-02-05

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused to assail the order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, (1st Class), No. 4, Alwar, whereby in a Final) Report submitted in negative form, the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. It is further prayed that the order 13.07.2016 passed by the revisional Court below, whereby the order of Magistrate was affirmed, be set aside. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the parties are in agreement that the complainant had earlier filed a divorce petition and the same has been dismissed on merits. 3. Mr. Aveesh Mourya, ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that in the divorce petition, the plea of cruelty raised by the complainant was not accepted by the Family Court. Counsel has further submitted that the Investigating Agency, after a thorough investigation, has submitted a Final Report in negative form. Counsel has contended that the a grave error was committed by the Court below to summon the petitioner through arrest warrants. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Saini & Others vs. State of Rajasthan, reported as 2016 (1) CJ (Cri.) (Raj.) 289, to contend that where a Final Report in negative form is filed by the Investigating Agency and the accused is summoned by the trial Court, the arrest warrants should not be issued at first instance. It is urged that by granting due regard to the opinion of the Investigating Officer, the accused should have been released on bail pending trial. 5. Mr. Ajay Gupta, ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant No. 2, has submitted that in the present case, due to various petitions filed, the complainant is running from pillar to post. Counsel has further submitted that the complaint/F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2011 and till today, the case is at an initial stage. Counsel has contended that in case, the petitioner furnishes his bail bonds before the trial Court and raises all arguments before the trial Court at appropriate stage, the present petition may be disposed of, with the directions aforesaid. 6. Counsel has contended that in case, the petitioner furnishes his bail bonds before the trial Court and raises all arguments before the trial Court at appropriate stage, the present petition may be disposed of, with the directions aforesaid. 6. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, that in the divorce petition allegations levelled by the respondent-wife have not been accepted by the Family Court and in the present case, the Investigating Agency had submitted a Final Report in negative form, it is, hereby, ordered that the petitioner, upon appearance before the trial Court, shall be released on bail during pendency of the trial to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all arguments available to him before the trial Court at appropriate stage. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of.