Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 205 (RAJ)

Kavita v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-01-20

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
ORDER 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the FIR No.0163/2021 dated 14.07.2021 of Police Station Marwar Junction, District Pali for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 109, 114, 506, 294-A of IPC and Section 3, 5 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 has submitted a complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Marwar Junction (for short 'the trial court') against the present petitioners and one Chanki Sharma (son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2). In the complaint, it is stated that marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Chanki Sharma on 04.02.2014 at Marwar Junction. At the time of marriage, the parents of the complainant gave certain ornaments, furniture, kitchen utensils, cloths etc. Thereafter it is alleged that for about six months of the marriage, things were normal, but after six months, the petitioners started harassing the complainant and demanded dowry. The accused petitioners treated the complainant with cruelty, but she remained calmed, however, in the year 2015, the complainant gave birth to a son, who is now six years old, and all the delivery expenses were borne by complainant's parents. It is further alleged that the accused persons continuously tortured the complainant and abused her even in public places. It is specifically alleged that the accused petitioners asked the complainant to bring Rs.5,00,000/-from her father as dowry. It is also alleged that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have told the complainant that their son will live abroad and marry there only, therefore, she may left their house. It is also alleged that the petitioners have misappropriated all the ornaments of the complainant and thrown her out from their house in Ahemdabad, thereafter, the complainant started living in Braj Bhoomi Society along with her mother on rent. It is further alleged that around two and a half years before, the complainant demanded the dowry items from the accused persons, but they did not return the same rather have simply thrown one almirah, cooler and bed from their house. The complainant has also alleged that the petitioners never took care of her son and their intention was that the complainant and her son may roam here and there. The complainant has also alleged that the petitioners never took care of her son and their intention was that the complainant and her son may roam here and there. It is also alleged that the petitioners have not paid any maintenance amount to the complainant and her son. It is also submitted that the complainant remained dependent on her parents and as her financial condition was so weak, therefore, around one and half months before she went to the house of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and asked them to help her but both of them insulted her in front of many people and threatened that she may leave Ahemdabad, otherwise they will kill her. The complainant has stated that at present she is residing in Marwar Junction and as her parents are old aged persons, they are maintaining themselves with very difficulty, but the accused persons are not allowing her to live in Marwar Junction with peace and are threatening through their relatives. It is specifically alleged by the complainant that the petitioners came to Marwar Junction to harass her and are also insulting and threatening her on mobile phone. 3. The aforesaid complaint was filed by the complainant in the concerned court on 06.04.2021 and under the directions of the concerned court, on 14.07.2021, an FIR No.163/2021 was lodged at Police Station Marwar Junction, District Pali and the police started investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are absolutely false. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact, the complainant is living separately from the petitioners in Ahemdabad from the year 2016 and she has already filed a complaint against the petitioners for domestic violence at Ahemdabad, which is pending consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioner No.3 is married sister-in-law of the complainant and at present she is residing in Mumbai, so there is no question of harassment on her part. It is also submitted that son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is living in South Africa since 2016 and the complainant never lived with the petitioners in Ahemdabad after 2016, therefore, there is no question of demand of dowry or harassing the complainant by the petitioners. It is also submitted that son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is living in South Africa since 2016 and the complainant never lived with the petitioners in Ahemdabad after 2016, therefore, there is no question of demand of dowry or harassing the complainant by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, submitted that the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of court and the same is filed by the complainant only with the intention to harass the petitioners. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this criminal misc. petition and submitted that from a bare reading of the contents of the impugned FIR, case for commission of offence is made out and, therefore, the same cannot be quashed. It is also submitted that the factum of marriage of the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 with the complainant is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that the son of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 left for South Africa without taking his wife and son and now he is residing there only. It is also submitted that the complainant, in her complaint, has specifically levelled allegations against the petitioners for demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment and the said allegations are required to be investigated. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that it is well settled that at the stage of quashing of FIR, the truthfulness regarding the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR cannot be taken into consideration. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, submitted that there is no force in this criminal misc. petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is true that the marriage of the complainant and the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was solemnized in the year 2015, however, in the complaint, it is specifically alleged by the complainant that six months after the marriage, the petitioners started harassing and demanding dowry from her and specific instances regarding cruelty and harassment have been stated in the complaint by the complainant. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. V/s. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. V/s. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has clearly held that at the stage of quashing an FIR, the court is not required to go into the truthfulness of the allegations levelled in the FIR and if a case for commission of offence is made out, then the High Court should refrain from exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the matters of quashing of FIR. 9. As observed above and from a bare reading of the contents of the FIR, I find that case for commission of offence is made out, hence, I am not inclined to entertain this criminal misc. petition. 10. Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed. 11. Stay petition is also dismissed.