Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 329 (RAJ)

Krishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2020-02-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
ORDER : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No. 140/2016 registered at the Woman Police Station, Sriganganagar. 2. Learned counsel Shri Nishant Bora representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently urges that the main allegations of the complainant are attributed to the accused Pawan Kumar being her husband. So far as the petitioners Krishna Lal, Sharda Devi and Kamlesh being the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of complainant are concerned, the allegations attributed to them are absolutely vague and unconvincing. Shri Bora urges that the spouses i.e. the complainant Smt. Manisha and the accused Pawan Kumar never resided at Sri Ganganagar and, therefore, there was no occasion for the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the sister-in-law to have treated her with cruelty or to have meted out harassment to her on account of demand of dowry etc. He further submits that the petitioner Kamlesh, being sister-in-law of the complainant was employed at Central Cooperative Bank, Dausa and thus, her implication in this case is totally unjustified. He further submits that the admitted allegations of the complainant as set out in the FIR indicate that she was harassed on account of demand of dowry at Jaipur and thus, the Police at Sri Ganganagar has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. He relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Neelu Chopra & Anr. vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 in support of the contentions and implored the Court to accept the Misc. Petition and quash the impugned FIR. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Rajendra Charan, Advocate representing the State and the complainant respectively vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. They urged that the petitioner No. 1 Krishan Lal is a Private Assistant in the District Court, Sri Ganganagar. There are direct allegations of the complainant that soon after her marriage with Pawan Kumar, when she reached at the matrimonial home, all the accused-persons taunted her regarding the quality and quantity of the dowry articles. The harassment continued thereafter also. Not only this, when the complainant was living with her husband at Jaipur, she was continuously harassed by the accused persons. The harassment continued thereafter also. Not only this, when the complainant was living with her husband at Jaipur, she was continuously harassed by the accused persons. The other three accused would come to Jaipur and treat her with cruelty on regular basis. They, therefore, submit that the matter is not such which requires interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned FIR and the material placed on record. 5. The primary submission of Shri Bora for seeking quashing of the impugned FIR was that the petitioners Krishan Lal, Sharda Devi and Kamlesh being the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the complainant never resided together with the complainant and that all the alleged instances of cruelty etc. upon the complainant were perpetuated at Jaipur and thus, the implication of these three petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A is not justified and that the Police Station at Sri Ganganagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In this regard, I have carefully perused the allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR and the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The complainant has levelled consistent allegations in the FIR and in her statement that soon after her marriage with Pawan Kumar which took place at Sri Ganganagar on 20.05.2013, all the accused-persons started making degrading comments regarding the quality and quantity of the dowry articles given to the complainant in the marriage. The accused petitioner No. 1 Krishan Lal used to threaten the complainant under the guise that he was a Private Assistant in the Sessions Court, Sri Ganganagar and that, looking to his position, the huge dowry was expected in his son's wedding. All these acts of taunting and cruelty took place with the complainant at Sri Ganganagar and are commonly attributed to all the accused persons. The complainant alleged that she lived with her husband at Jaipur for a significant period, during which also, she was harassed and humiliated by the in-laws when they used to visit Jaipur. The complainant gave birth to a female child whereafter, she was taunted by the accused that they were desirous of a male child. Numerous Panchayats were held at Sri Ganganagar whereafter the accused took the complainant back to the matrimonial home. The complainant gave birth to a female child whereafter, she was taunted by the accused that they were desirous of a male child. Numerous Panchayats were held at Sri Ganganagar whereafter the accused took the complainant back to the matrimonial home. The accused party were not satisfied with the money given in the Chhuchhak ceremony and demanded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from her. 6. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the ratio of the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Preeti Gupta and Neelu Chopra (supra) relied upon by Shri Bora is of no avail to the accused-petitioners because there are specific allegations of the complainant against all the four accused that they harassed and humiliated her on account of demand of dowry. Regarding the contention of Shri Bora that no specific allegation of demand of dowry is attributed to any of the accused and thus, the FIR should be quashed is concerned, the said argument is also noted just to be rejected because the FIR itself does disclose all required allegations for constituting ingredients of the offences alleged against all the accused. Numerous acts of cruelty and demand of dowry took place at Sri Ganganagar and thus, it cannot be held that no part of cause of action took place in that jurisdiction. Thus, I am not inclined to exercise this Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so as to quash the impugned FIR at the inception. The Investigating Officer is directed to file result of the investigation in the Court concerned at the earliest whereafter, the trial of the case shall be proceeded expeditiously. 7. The Misc. Petition is rejected with the above directions. 8. Stay petition is also rejected.