Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 768 (RAJ)

Anurag Tada v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2023-04-05

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2023
ORDER 1. Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 111/2021 registered at Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur City (East) for offence under Sections 498A, 406 & 323 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 gave a written report at Mahila Police Station (East), Jodhpur to the effect that his daughter Saroj is married to Anurag Tada on 14.02.2009. At the time of marriage, the complainant on demand, gave dowry including jewellery and cash. It is alleged that after marriage, Anuraj took his daughter to Kualalampur, Malaysia. In the year 2012, a daughter was born out of the wedlock but soon thereafter, the accused persons started harassing his daughter demanding dowry. After pacification, the complainant gave 12 tolas of gold jewellery. Thereafter, Anurag took his daughter back to Malaysia but started ill treatment and used to confine her in a room. Thereafter, in the year 2016, his daughter came back to India and gave birth to baby boy. In the month of October, 2016, his daughter went to Malaysia alongwith her both kids but the behaviour of Anurag did not change and continued his harassment and even tried to kill her due to which she had to be hospitalised. Thereafter, Anurag dropped his daughter and children at Jodhpur and went back and demanded Rs. 5 lacs as dowry. The police registered the case and investigation commenced. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the first instance submits that a perusal of the FIR would go to show that omnibus allegation has been levelled against all the accused that they demanded dowry and harassed the complainant's daughter Saroj. the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and daughter of complainant took place in the year 2009 and thereafter, the petitioner no.1 and Saroj went to Malayasia and have been happily living in Malaysia. It is argued that the petitioners never demanded any dowry and whatever dowry was given as per customs, it is with the complainant's daughter. It is further argued that the harassment and demand of dowry has been alleged to be made by the petitioner no.1 at Malaysia, therefore, the FIR lodged by the complainant at Jodhpur against all the petitioners is without jurisdiction. It is further argued that the petitioner no.1 had deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,32,28,032/- in the NRI account of complainant's daughter, out of which Rs. It is further argued that the petitioner no.1 had deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,32,28,032/- in the NRI account of complainant's daughter, out of which Rs. 65 lacs have been withdrawn by the complaint without consent of the petitioner no.1. Therefore, there is no question of demand of dowry and the complainant only with a view to pressurize the petitioners, has lodged this false FIR against the petitioners. Even as per the factual report submitted by the police before this Court dated 06.12.2022, no offence is made out against the petitioners No.2 & 3 who are father-in-law and mother-in-law but now the Investigating officer has issued notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C against the petitioners No.2 & 3 also and no new material has come up to implicate the petitioners no.2 & 3. Therefore, the FIR may be quashed against the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant submits that specific allegation has been levelled against all the petitioners in the FIR with regard to harassment and demand of dowry, therefore, at this stage, the FIR is not liable to be quashed. 5. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record. 6. From the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, it is evident that the complainant has alleged that marriage of his daughter Saroj was solemnized with Anurag Tada on 14.02.2009. After marriage, Anuraj took complainant's daughter to Kualalampur, Malaysia. In the year 2012, a daughter was born out of the wedlock. Thereafter, Anurag took his daughter back to Malaysia but the accused persons started harassing the daughter of complainant demanding dowry. Thereafter, in the year 2016, his daughter gave birth to baby boy and in the month of October, 2016, his daughter went to Malaysia alongwith her both kids but petitioner no.1 Anurag continued to harass her and even tried to kill her due to which she had to be hospitalised. Thus, upon perusal of FIR and statement of the complainant, specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner no.1 but no specific allegation has been levelled with regard to cruelty and beating against the petitioner no.2 & 3 who are father-in-law and mother-in-law and were living at Jodhpur. Thus, upon perusal of FIR and statement of the complainant, specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner no.1 but no specific allegation has been levelled with regard to cruelty and beating against the petitioner no.2 & 3 who are father-in-law and mother-in-law and were living at Jodhpur. Similarly, complainant's daughter in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. & 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that just after marriage, she went alongwith her husband to Malaysia and was continuously ill-treated by petitioner no.1 husband and also demanded dowry. No specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners No.2 & 3. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. : 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335], laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors reported in AIR 2022 SC 820 has observed as under :- "21. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors reported in AIR 2022 SC 820 has observed as under :- "21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law. 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the Accused Appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the Accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged." 9. Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in AIR 2013, SC 181 has noted that in the matrimonial dispute, there is tendency to involve the entire family members of the household by observing as under: "20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding. 21. 21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : "12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes." 10. In the matter of Chandralekha and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2013) 14 SC 374, the Hon'ble Supreme court while maintaining the proceedings against husband and quashing it against mother-in-law and sister-in- law has held that : "9. We must, at the outset, state that the High Court's view on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we confirm the view. However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3." 11. Similarly in the matter of Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 while quashing the proceedings against father-in-law and mother-in-law has observed as under: "9. In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. 10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants." 12. On the basis of evidence collected during the investigation so also the statement of witnesses, in the opinion of this Court, the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 111/2021 lodged at Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur city (East) are liable to be quashed qua the petitioners No.2 & 3. However, so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, at this stage, no case for quashing of FIR is made out in this case qua the petitioner no.1 Anurag as the complainant Saroj has specifically mentioned the harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the petitioner no.1. 13. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is partly allowed. The criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 111/2021 registered at Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur city (East) against petitioners No.2 Koja Ram & No.3 Smt. Bhanwari Devi, are hereby quashed. No case is made out for quashing of FIR No.111/2021 is made out qua the petitioner no.1. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed qua the petitioner no.1 Anurag Tada. Stay petition is also dismissed.