Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 14 (RAJ)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2021-01-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners herein seeking quashing of FIR No. 27/2018 lodged at the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur City West for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 & 354 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant and essential for disposal of this misc. petition are that the complainant Padma Tiwadi W/o. Shri Pawan Kumar, D/o. Shri Radheyshyam, R/o. Sardarpura E Road, Near Rajpurohit Hostel, Jodhpur lodged a complaint to the SHO, Mahila Police Station Jodhpur West on 10.02.2018 alleging inter alia therein that she was married to the petitioner No. 1 Pawan Kumar on 25.05.2001. She alleged in the complaint that sufficient amount of dowry was given in the marriage. However, the complainant's husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry articles and immediately after marriage, they started harassing and humiliating the complainant on this count. The valuable articles of the complainant were taken in possession by the mother-in-law Smt. Bhanwari Devi. She was beaten frequently and maltreated for not satisfying the unjust demand of dowry. In the initial days, the complainant tolerated the inhuman conduct of the accused believing that things would improve with time but to her predicament, the cruel behavior of the accused increased. As the complainant's father was unable to meet the illegal demands of the accused and on this ground, not only was she maltreated but her father was also insulted. Right after the marriage, her father-in-law started casting an evil eye on her and he drilled a pinhole in her bedroom wall from which he used to spy on her. The complainant apprised of the incident to her mother-in-law and her husband but rather than chastising her father-in-law, the complainant was blamed for being a characterless woman. Her father-in-law tried to make passes at her and would often touch her inappropriately on which, the complainant reported the mis-happenings to her father. When the issue was raised, her father-in-law Madan Lal apologized before the father of the complainant and assured that he would refrain from such misdeeds in future. She gave birth to two daughters on which, the barbaric actions of the accused persons increased and insinuations were hurled at her that the girls were an additional burden. Her mother-in-law often used to incite her husband to divorce her or to kill her so that he could be re-married. She gave birth to two daughters on which, the barbaric actions of the accused persons increased and insinuations were hurled at her that the girls were an additional burden. Her mother-in-law often used to incite her husband to divorce her or to kill her so that he could be re-married. With great difficulties, she managed her children's admission to a school. Her husband made no contribution towards education of the daughters on which, she was compelled to mortgage few of her ornaments with Muthoot Finance and paid the school fees of the girls. On being perturbed by regular maltreatment and physical torture, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and live at her father's home at Jodhpur for a significant period of time. She lodged a complaint at the Women Protection Cell of Jodhpur Commissionerate where conciliation was attempted but her husband Pawan did not cooperate in the proceedings and threatened to divorce her. On the basis of the complaint aforestated, the impugned FIR came to be registered at the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur West on 10.02.2018 and investigation was commenced. The petitioners herein have approached this Court by way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned FIR alleging that the registration and investigation in connection with the said FIR amounts to gross abuse of process of law and thus, it should be quashed. 3. Shri N.L. Joshi, learned counsel representing the petitioners has placed on record certain documents. Amongst these documents, one is a complaint dated 12.04.2017 lodged by the petitioner Pawan Kumar at the Police Station Brahampuri, Jaipur wherein allegations were levelled that he had taken up a rented premises nearby the house of his parents where he, his wife and daughters were living. On 15.02.2017, he went to the house and saw that it was locked. His wife had gone to her father's house at Jodhpur with the daughters and took away all valuable articles, etc. which were missing from the house. Another document which has been annexed is pertaining to the conciliation attempted between the complainant and the Pawan Kumar at the Mahila Suraksha and Salah Kendra Jodhpur West on 02.03.2017. His wife had gone to her father's house at Jodhpur with the daughters and took away all valuable articles, etc. which were missing from the house. Another document which has been annexed is pertaining to the conciliation attempted between the complainant and the Pawan Kumar at the Mahila Suraksha and Salah Kendra Jodhpur West on 02.03.2017. In this proceeding which is signed by Padma as well as the petitioner Pawan, he categorically admitted that he was repenting for the mistakes made by him and profoundly apologized with an intention to take back his wife and daughters. The complainant stated that she would go back with her husband provided that he did not maltreat her. 4. A copy of the application moved by the petitioner No. 1 Pawan Kumar in the court of Family Judge No. 1, Jaipur under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has also been filed on record. Shri N.L. Joshi, Advocate representing the petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that the impugned FIR is nothing but a piece of exaggeration and total falsehood and deserves to be quashed. As per Shri Joshi, the complainant has a habit of deserting the petitioner No.1 without any cause. The petitioner tried his level best to settle the family issues by taking a separate premises on rent where, he, his wife and daughters lived for quite some time. However, Smt. Padma did not cooperate and left the premises without informing the husband i.e., the petitioner Pawan herein. He contended that the petitioner Pawan filed a complaint against Padma alleging that she took away all the valuables from the rented premises at Jaipur where the spouses used to reside with their two daughters and that the FIR impugned has been lodged simply by way of counterblast to the complaint lodged by Pawan. He thus, urges that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed in its entirety. Shri N.L. Joshi Advocate placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his arguments seeking quashing of the impugned FIR:- 1. Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 2. Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 12 SCC 595 5. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent-complainant despite service. 6. Shri N.L. Joshi Advocate placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his arguments seeking quashing of the impugned FIR:- 1. Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 2. Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 12 SCC 595 5. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent-complainant despite service. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the factual report of the IO, as per which the IO has concluded that the offence under Section 354 IPC was not established against the accused petitioner Madanlal Tiwadi from the material collected during investigation. However, offences under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC have been found proved against the petitioners herein and the mother-in-law Smt. Bhanwari Devi after thorough investigation. He thus, urges that this Court should not feel persuaded to interfere in the impugned FIR by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned FIR. 8. Suffice it to say that the FIR came to be lodged after almost seventeen years of the marriage of the complainant with the accused Pawan. It is an admitted position that owing to the day to day squabbles in the family, the husband Pawan took up rented premises in Brahampuri, Jaipur where the spouses and the children could live separately from Pawan's parents. Nonetheless, as per the allegations of the complainant, her maltreatment by the accused persons continued and she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and came down to Jodhpur with her daughters and was forced to live at her father's home. After coming back to Jodhpur, the complainant lodged a report at the Conciliation Centre of the Women Police Station where the petitioner Pawan was summoned. He gave in writing that he would not maltreat his wife again if she came back to live with him. This statement of Pawan as recorded in the conciliation proceedings is virtually an admission of the fact that Pawan maltreated his wife. 9. The two judgments cited by Shri Joshi were delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court at the appellate stage and hence, the principles laid down therein would definitely be relevant for deciding a controversy at that particular stage. However, in the case at hand, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR at its inception. 9. The two judgments cited by Shri Joshi were delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court at the appellate stage and hence, the principles laid down therein would definitely be relevant for deciding a controversy at that particular stage. However, in the case at hand, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR at its inception. Shri Joshi's fervent contention was that even admitting the allegations of the complainant to be true on the face of record, the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC are not made out. Section 498-A IPC reads as under:- "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means-- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." The clause (b) thereof pertains to the harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Subjecting a married woman to cruelty also invites the ire of Section 498-A IPC where such cruelty is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause danger to life or health (mental or physical) of the woman. Suffice it to say that considering the contents of the impugned FIR, there cannot be any doubt that the allegations of harassment meted out by the petitioner Pawan Kumar upon the complainant definitely constitute to be cruelty within the meaning of Clauses (a) as well as (b) of Section 498-A IPC. Suffice it to say that considering the contents of the impugned FIR, there cannot be any doubt that the allegations of harassment meted out by the petitioner Pawan Kumar upon the complainant definitely constitute to be cruelty within the meaning of Clauses (a) as well as (b) of Section 498-A IPC. So far as the petitioner No. 2 Madan Lal, father-in-law and Smt. Bhanwari Devi, the mother-in-law of the complainant (who has not approached this Court) are concerned, from bare perusal of the impugned FIR and the material collected by the IO, it is clear that the families started living separately long back before the FIR came to be lodged. The allegation of outraging modesty of the complainant as against her father-in-law was not found substantiated because the IO has not found the offence under Section 354 IPC made out after investigation. 10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned FIR No. 27/2018 and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof deserve to be quashed qua the petitioner No.2 Madan Lal and the accused Smt. Bhanwari Devi. However, no interference is called for in the investigation of the impugned FIR to the extent of the petitioner No.1 Pawan Kumar. Accordingly, the misc. petition deserves to be and is accepted in part. All proceedings of the impugned FIR qua the accused Madan Lal and Smt. Bhanwari Devi are quashed. However the investigation shall continue as against the accused Pawan Kumar.