Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2281 (RAJ)

Prakash Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

2023-12-19

RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

body2023
ORDER : Mr. Rajendra Prakash Soni, J. - The petitioner has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Balotra, District Barmer being Criminal Regular Case No. 277/2022 and the charge sheet in connection with FIR No. 585/2021 of PS Balotra, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code wherein, after filing of the charge sheet, the cognizance of the said offences has been taken against the petitioner. 2. As per facts of the case, a report was lodged before Balotra Police by the complainant-respondent No. 2 Anuradha to the effect that family of complainant and petitioner belong to the same caste and there was an old acquaintance between them, therefore, the father of the petitioner Mr. Bhagirath Agarwal made a proposal to the parents of the complainant for marriage of his son Prakash Agarwal with the complainant Anuradha. In the FIR, complainant admitted that she was earlier married but had socially divorced and severed her relationship with husband and began to live with her parents. With the consent of Prakash Agarwal, complainant Anuradha and their family members, marriage of Anuradha and Prakash Agarwal was solemnized on 09.12.2020 according to the Hindu rites and rituals in the presence of the Priest as well as family members of both the parties. Petitioner accepted the complainant as his wedded wife. 3. It was also alleged that the parents of respondent No.2 at the time of marriage had given some jewellery and Rs. 1.5 lacs cash along with other items to the petitioner. After few days of the marriage, the petitioner in league with his parents, started demanding Rs. 1.00 lac in cash and 5 tolas of gold as dowry and in this connection they started torturing her in various ways and due to such treatment meted out to her, she suffered both mentally and physically and finally she returned to her parents on 06.03.2021. She was also cautioned by her in-laws that she would not be accepted lest she brings the dowry in cash and kind. 4. She was also cautioned by her in-laws that she would not be accepted lest she brings the dowry in cash and kind. 4. On the basis of said FIR, a criminal case was registered and on completion of the investigation made by the Police, a charge-sheet was submitted by the Police alleging, inter alia, that in the investigation, it was established that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences. 5. Mr. Devendra Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the complainant Anuradha was earlier married to one Anshul. Without obtaining a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, she again solemnized marriage with the petitioner which cannot be said to be a valid marriage; that second marriage in the life-time of the first husband without obtaining a decree of divorce is a void marriage having no sanction of law, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deemed to be her husband in terms of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, said offence is not attracted against the petitioner. 6. It is further argued that since the prosecution has failed to establish the relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and the complainant Anuradha, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner cannot be sustained under the law. 7. On the other hand Ms. Anita, learned Public Prosecutor has seriously contested all the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that although the complainant Anuradha has admitted the fact of her earlier marriage in the complainant but besides it, the fact of divorce and socially severing of her relationship with her first husband was also made clear. Hence, the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant Anuradha was a valid marriage and they were legally wedded husband and wife therefore, all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code were attracted in the present case. Lastly, it was argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner and continuation of the proceedings in the trial court. With the said contentions, she sought to dismiss the present petition. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 9. The scope and power of quashing a first information report and a charge sheet under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is well settled. With the said contentions, she sought to dismiss the present petition. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 9. The scope and power of quashing a first information report and a charge sheet under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is well settled. The said power is exercised by the Court to prevent abuse of process of law but could be exercised only when the complaint filed by the complainant or the charge sheet filed by the Police did not disclose any offence or when the said complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious and oppressive. The High Court has to see whether the allegations made in the FIR, if proved, make out a prima facie offence and that the accused has prima facie committed the offence. 10. The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and in particular, the first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value as taken to be correct in their entirety, discloses no cognizable offence. For the said purpose, the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look into any document relied upon by the defence. Such powers could be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the petitioner to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. 11. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view the object for which, the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. 12. While applying the said principles in the present matter, it is seen that the complainant Anuradha clearly agreed in the FIR itself that earlier she was married to some other person and now is a divorcee. It indicates that the fact of earlier marriage of the complainant was clearly brought into notice of the petitioner and his family. Being aware of the said fact, the petitioner had agreed to solemnize marriage with the complainant. The petitioner relied upon an affidavit of live-in-relationship executed between the complainant Anuradha and one Anshul as the evidence of first marriage of the complainant. Being aware of the said fact, the petitioner had agreed to solemnize marriage with the complainant. The petitioner relied upon an affidavit of live-in-relationship executed between the complainant Anuradha and one Anshul as the evidence of first marriage of the complainant. However, it is to be noted that a valid and legal marriage cannot be assumed on the basis of such an live-in-relationship affidavit. 13. On the basis of admission of the complainant or the live-in- relationship affidavit, whether Anshul was first legally wedded husband of the complainant or not and whether it was necessary for the complainant to get a decree of divorce as per the law is a matter of evidence and trial. This fact is to be proved by the prosecution during the evidence which is a matter of trial but the fact remains that the petitioner accepted the complainant Anuradha as her legally wedded wife and has solemnized the marriage with her as per the Hindu rituals and rites. 14. In that view of the matter, the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC are clearly attracted in the present case, which prima facie constitute a case as defined in the said provision. 15. It is, thus, established that on a reading of the FIR as also the charge sheet filed against the petitioner, a case under Section 498A of the IPC is prima facie made out on the face of the record therefore, I do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant Anuradha had failed to establish that she was legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the petitioner as her husband was not liable to be criminally prosecuted in the instant case. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the FIR and the charge sheet do not disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the petitioner. 16. For the reasons stated above, I do not find that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are unsustainable under the law. Hence, the entire criminal proceedings, i.e., Criminal Regular Case No. 277/2022 pending in the Court of ACJM No.1, Balotra, District Barmer arising out of FIR No. 585/2021 of Police Station Balotra, District Barmer including the order dated 20.04.2022 by which, cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner are found to be maintainable. Hence, the entire criminal proceedings, i.e., Criminal Regular Case No. 277/2022 pending in the Court of ACJM No.1, Balotra, District Barmer arising out of FIR No. 585/2021 of Police Station Balotra, District Barmer including the order dated 20.04.2022 by which, cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner are found to be maintainable. In my view, it cannot be said that continuation of the said criminal proceedings will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 17. Resultantly, no case is made out for quashing of the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence, the instant petition filed on behalf of the petitioner Prakash Agarwal is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Stay application is also stands disposed of accordingly. Needless to mention that the learned Magistrate shall not be influenced by any of the observations made herein. Rival contentions of the parties are left open.