Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 286 (RAJ)

Abhishek Adlakha v. State of Rajasthan

2024-02-15

SUDESH BANSAL

body2024
ORDER : Sudesh Bansal, J. - This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.121/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar (Jaipur East) Jaipur for the offence under Sections 498A & 406 IPC. 2. Heard counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 3. It has been pointed out that during course of instant petition, investigation by the Police in the impugned FIR was continued and after investigation, petitioners No.2,3,4 & 5 have not been found involved in commission of offences under section 498A & 406 IPC, however, against petitioner No.1-husband charge sheet for offences under section 498A & 406 IPC has been filed on 25.09.2023. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court has taken cognizance for such offences against petitioner No.1-husband and registered criminal case No.166/2023; State v. Abhishek Adlakha, which is pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan I, at the stage of charge arguments. Counsel for petitioners, by way of moving application dated 22.01.2024, placed a certified copy of charge sheet, challenging the same so also proceedings of criminal case pending against the petitioner No.1. In view of above, the present petition to quash the impugned FIR qua petitioners No.2,3,4 & 5 has rendered infructuous and survives only by and on behalf of petitioner No.1. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner contended that marriage between petitioner & non petitioner No.2-complainant was entered into on 28.06.2012, thereafter, from their wedlock non petitioner No.2 gave birth to one baby child on 03.04.2013, but later on, due to some matrimonial acrimony, non petitioner No.2 submitted a criminal complainant before the Court on 02.03.2017, which was sent for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and whereupon, an FIR No.59/2017 dated 28.04.2017 was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (North) for offences under section 498A, 406, 323 & 341 IPC read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It has been submitted that from the side of petitioner, initially notice under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was given, however thereafter, petition for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed. Later on, both parties mutually settled their matrimonial dispute on 21.06.2017 and a written compromise was executed. The compromise dated 21.06.2017, allegedly executed between parties, has been placed on record as Annexure.2. 5. Later on, both parties mutually settled their matrimonial dispute on 21.06.2017 and a written compromise was executed. The compromise dated 21.06.2017, allegedly executed between parties, has been placed on record as Annexure.2. 5. Counsel for petitioner contends that thereafter, both parties started to live together and out of their conjugal relationship, non petitioner No.2 gave birth to second daughter on 28.03.2018. It has been submitted that non petitioner No.2 is a lady of aggressive nature and she again entered into quarrel with petitioner and left matrimonial home along with her two daughters on 03.05.2022. Because of her ill behaviour and causing tease/harassment to her in-laws family, her mother-in-law i.e. petitioner No.2 herein, made a complainant against her on 04.05.2022, regarding domestic violence. Thereafter, petitioner has filed a divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 10.06.2022. After service of notices of divorce petition, non petitioner No.2 has again lodged impugned FIR No.121/2023 on 02.06.2023 for offences under section 498A & 406 IPC. 6. Counsel for petitioner argued that allegations made by the complainant in the impugned FIR about her harassment for demand of dowry, are prima facie false in the light of compromise dated 21.06.2017, entered into & executed between both parties. In the compromise, non petitioner No.2 had admitted that petitioner never made a demand of dowry nor from the side of non petitioner No.2 any dowry or cash, either at the time of marriage or thereafter, was given. It has been argued that in the complaint, allegations leveled against all petitioners are concocted and exaggerated; there are allegations against the petitioner No.1 to go abroad alone without taking her with him; there are allegations for not giving house hold expenses to her and not taking care of her & two daughters even in need of medical treatment. It has been pointed out that such allegations do not fall within purview of criminal cruelty to attract offences under Sections 498A & 406 IPC. It has been pointed out that the articles belonging to non petitioner No.2 have already been delivered to her during course of investigation and the same have been received by the non petitioner No.2, of which the receipt is available in the charge sheet. It has been pointed out that the articles belonging to non petitioner No.2 have already been delivered to her during course of investigation and the same have been received by the non petitioner No.2, of which the receipt is available in the charge sheet. Thus, counsel for petitioner contended that filing of charge sheet for offences under section 498A & 406 IPC against the petitioner No.1, is wholly against the law and as per material on record, no prima facie case for such offences is make out against the petitioner No.1, however, the trial Court took cognizance for such offences vide order dated 29.09.2023 and registered a criminal case against the petitioner No.1. It has been prayed that charge sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case against the petitioner No.1, arising out of impugned FIR No.121/2023 be quashed and set aside, being in abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. 7. Per contra, counsel for complainant and learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions made by counsel for petitioner and submitted that during course of investigation, as per evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, it is prima facie established that petitioner harassed and caused criminal cruelty, mentally and physically, towards his wife-non petitioner No.2, in manifold manner and according to the complainant, her complete belongings and articles have not been delivered to her, therefore, offences under section 498A & 406 IPC against the petitioner No.1, have been found proved and charge-sheet has been filed, whereupon the trial Court has taken cognizance. It has been submitted that criminal case is pending at the stage of hearing arguments for charge, petitioner has an opportunity to make his submissions at the stage of charge arguments, therefore, in such a situation, the High Court should not exercise its inherent powers to quash and set aside the charge-sheet and proceedings of criminal case pending before the trial Court, as such the present petition be dismissed. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. From a bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it appears that non petitioner No.2 has disclosed the factum of compromise entered into between parties on 21.06.2017. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. From a bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it appears that non petitioner No.2 has disclosed the factum of compromise entered into between parties on 21.06.2017. It has been averred that she gave birth to second daughter on 28.03.2018 and thereafter, her in-laws family started to harass her mentally, physically & economically; a Honda car was demanded; it has been averred that when she suffered with toothache, her husband neither got her treatment nor gave money for the treatment and she was left to suffer in pain. She had to take shelter to her parents for treatment, when thereafter, she came back to her in-laws house, demand for money and a Honda car was made. Thereafter, she with her two daughters were turned out of matrimonial house, hence she had to file complaint for return of her streedhan and cruelty caused to her. 10. From record, it appears that during course of investigation, the Police tried to reconcile the dispute between parties, however, both parties made aspersions against each other and conciliation proceedings remained unsuccessful. The Police recorded statements of complainant, her father Ashok Kumar, her mother Baljeet Kaur and other witnesses Rajeev Kumar Arora, Bhupendra Singh, Naveen Dua, Manoj Chandnani etc. Few witnesses namely Rajeev Kumar Arora, Bhupinder Singh have made statements against the petitioner, to harass the complainant for demand of dowry and in other ways. Few witnesses namely Naveen dua, Manoj Chandnani stated fault on the part of complainant that she used to quarrel with her husband. There is receipt of complainant dated 25.06.2023 accepting few of her golden jewellery and other things from the petitioner, however, the complainant submitted list of other jewellery and articles, which have not been returned to her. On the basis of such evidence and material, the Police has framed an opinion that prima facie case for offences under section 498A & 406 IPC is make out against the petitioner No.1 and hence, submitted charge-sheet before the trial Court. 11. It is an admitted case of petitioner that after compromise dated 21.06.2017, matrimonial acrimony occurred between parties. Petitioner's mother filed a complaint against the non petitioner No.2 on 04.05.2021 at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, causing domestic violence by her. Petitioner himself has filed divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 10.06.2022, which is pending before the Family Court. Petitioner's mother filed a complaint against the non petitioner No.2 on 04.05.2021 at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, causing domestic violence by her. Petitioner himself has filed divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 10.06.2022, which is pending before the Family Court. Thus, it is clear that even if parties entered into compromise on 21.06.2017 and made an effort to save their matrimonial relationship, but domestic discord erupted between them and due to which, the petitioner filed divorce petition and non petitioner No.2 has lodged the impugned FIR. In the FIR, allegations for harassment and demand of cash so also a Honda Car and causing criminal cruelty upon her by the petitioner, have been made, which are subsequent to the alleged compromise. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Ravi Kumar v. State [ (2019)14 SCC 568 ], has held that it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegation in the complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the celebrated judgment in case of State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] while discussing the powers and jurisdiction of the High Court to quash the FIR or complaint or criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to secure ends of justice, held as under:-- "The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court 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 com-plaint, 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) 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 b private and personal grudge. 13. Having viewed allegations made by the complainant in the impugned FIR and the evidence, which has come on record during course of investigation, prima facie on their face value, it may not be said that such allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence or do not disclose the commission of any offence or do not make out even a prima facie case of Sections 498A & 406 IPC against the petitioner. Further, the present criminal proceedings may not be assumed to be manifestly contended with mala fides or have been initiated with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. 14. The correctness/truthfulness of allegations made by the complainant, subjecting her to criminal cruelty and misappropriation of her articles can be adjudicated after recording evidence of parties. Further, the present criminal proceedings may not be assumed to be manifestly contended with mala fides or have been initiated with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. 14. The correctness/truthfulness of allegations made by the complainant, subjecting her to criminal cruelty and misappropriation of her articles can be adjudicated after recording evidence of parties. At the stage of deciding the petition by the High Court under section 482 Cr.PC to quash the FIR or complaint or criminal proceedings, the allegations made by the complaint and the evidence collected during investigation, which goes in her favour, cannot be brushed aside. In case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, [2021 SCC Online SC 315], the Apex Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/ complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1960 SC 866 ] and Bhajan Lal (supra), the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. 15. It is settled proposition of law that powers of High Court to quash FIR or criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only in rarest of rare cases. Having discussed the factual matrix of the present case, this case does not fall in the criteria of rarest of rare cases. Hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR against the petitioner No.1 so also charge-sheet submitted in pursuance thereof after investigation and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner No.1 before the trial Court. 16. At this stage, counsel for petitioner made an alternative prayer that petitioner be allowed to raise his objections before the trial Court at the time of charge arguments. 16. At this stage, counsel for petitioner made an alternative prayer that petitioner be allowed to raise his objections before the trial Court at the time of charge arguments. This Court makes it clear that aforesaid findings/observations made by this Court are confined to decide the present petition for quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings, hence, it is open for the petitioner to make all his legal and valid submissions before the trial Court at the stage of charge arguments, to oppose framing of charges and findings/observations recorded hereinabove will not affect the case of either of the parties on merits before the trial Court. 17. With aforesaid observations/liberty, without quashing of impugned FIR and criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner No.1, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. 18. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.