Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 999 (RAJ)

Priyanka Purohit v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-03-29

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. By way of the present petition the petitioners have challenged the FIR No.192/2021 dated 02.09.2021 registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 420, 494, 496, 503, 506, 34 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matrimonial dispute arose between the petitioner No.1 (wife) and the complainant (husband), due to which he had filed an FIR No.174/2015 which was registered at Police Station Khajuwala, District Bikaner levelling allegations of offences under the provisions of Section 420, 406 & 120-B IPC and the case is being tried by the competent Criminal Court. 3. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner No.1 left the matrimonial house in the year 2015 itself whereafter the FIR No.174/2015 came to be lodged by her husband, whereafter the petitioner No.1 is living separately and the matter is pending consideration of the competent Court. 4. Learned counsel argued that in the FIR under challenge, the complainant has levelled the allegation that the petitioner No.1 has contracted second marriage without getting a decree of divorce and in that case also the complainant has again levelled allegations of cheating him and taking away the valuables and other ornaments. 5. Learned counsel further argued that so far as cheating and taking away other valuable articles/ornaments is concerned, the complainant had already filed an FIR in the year 2015, whereafter the petitioner No.1 is living separately. He added that the allegations in the present FIR are nothing but reiteration of the allegations levelled in the earlier FIR. In the present case, only a new allegation has been levelled that petitioner No.1 has contracted marriage with petitioner No.6 - Sujal Mesi @ Samir, which at the maximum constitutes an offence under Section 494 IPC. 6. Learned counsel argued that the offence under Section 494 IPC is non-cognizable and thus, no FIR can be registered for such offence and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for other offences, as earlier FIR/case for the very same allegation is pending trial. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor admitted the fact that the offence under Section 494 IPC is non-cognizable and cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate only, pursuant to complaint filed in accordance with law. 8. Mr. Pritam Joshi, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that FIR in question is clearly maintainable, as the complainant has been cheated. 9. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor admitted the fact that the offence under Section 494 IPC is non-cognizable and cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate only, pursuant to complaint filed in accordance with law. 8. Mr. Pritam Joshi, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that FIR in question is clearly maintainable, as the complainant has been cheated. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner No.1 - wife of the complainant is living separately since 2015. 10. Allegations of cheating and taking away the ornaments thus relate back to the year 2015 in relation whereof an FIR had already been registered and the case is being tried by the competent Court. 11. The present FIR consists of the allegations for which the case is already pending consideration before the competent Court and the only offence which has now been alleged to have been committed by the petitioner No.1 is, contracting marriage with Mr. Sujal Mesi on 19.03.2021. 12. In the opinion of this Court, the offence, if any, has been committed by the petitioner No.1 on 19.03.2021 i.e. contracting marriage without getting the earlier marriage dissolved in accordance with law. The other allegations relate back to period prior to 2015 for which the petitioner No.1 is already under trial. 13. That apart, the offence under Section 494 IPC is a non- cognizable offence. Such offence not being an offence against the State is punishable subject to cognizance to be taken by a competent Court that too pursuant to a complaint filed by the aggrieved party. 14. In view of the discussion foregoing, the FIR in question is contrary to law. The petition is thus, allowed and the FIR No.192/2021 lodged at Police Station Khajuwala, District Bikaner against the petitioners is hereby quashed. 15. The complainant shall be free to take appropriate proceedings for offence of entering into second marriage allegedly committed by the petitioner No.1, which is punishable under Section 494 IPC. 16. Stay application too stands disposed of accordingly.