Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 623 (RAJ)

Kalawati Devi @ Suresh v. State of Rajasthan

2024-04-18

SUDESH BANSAL

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Since these three petitions are arising out of one common FIR, therefore, same are decided by this common order. S.B. Crl.M.P. No. 8531/2022: 2. This petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the accused-petitioner-mother-in-law of deceased seeking to quash FIR No.235/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Alwar for offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, which came to be registered on the complaint made by father of deceased, in respect of "dowry death" of his daughter at the house of her in-laws. It is noteworthy to record that after investigation made in the impugned FIR, charge-sheet for offences u/s. 498A, 304B and 306 IPC has been filed against husband and mother-in-law of deceased; husband has been arrested and is in judicial custody. However, the mother-in-law (petitioner herein) is absconding, hence the charge-sheet against her has been filed under section 299 CrPC and arrest warrant against the petitioner under section 37 of the Police Act has also been issued. 3. Fact of the case are that an FIR came to be lodged on 24.06.2022 by the complainant alleging therein that his daughter Mamta was married to Rajesh Saini on 31.10.2017 at Alwar. It was stated that in the marriage Renault Kwid car, Cash Rs. 2.5 lac, Golden ornaments 4 tola, and Silver ornaments and other domestic articles including furniture were given in dowry. Still in-laws of his daughter Rajesh Saini-husband, Shri. Ram Saini-Father-in-law, Suresh Devi @ Kalawati-Mother-in-law, Maina-Nanad, Mothu, Rekha and Sarita were not happy with the dowry and they all used to torture his daughter Mamta for the demand of more dowry. It was stated that 20 days back, the daughter came to parental house and after some time when she was to go in-laws house, she denied to go her in-laws house and told that she was usually beaten by her in-laws. Anyhow, daughter was sent to her in-laws house, thereupon on 21.06.2022, she complained through telephone about the torture for the demand of dowry and requested to take her. Later on the complainant got information that his daughter has died because of hanging herself, therefore, the complainant lodged the FIR. 4. Investigation in the impugned FIR was commenced and during investigation statements of complainant, his family members and neighbours were recorded. Later on the complainant got information that his daughter has died because of hanging herself, therefore, the complainant lodged the FIR. 4. Investigation in the impugned FIR was commenced and during investigation statements of complainant, his family members and neighbours were recorded. After thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer observed that offence u/s. 498A and 304B IPC is established against the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased. The husband Rajesh Kumar Saini was arrested on 27-6-2022 and against him charge sheet has been filed. As far as mother-in-law of deceased, i.e. the petitioner herein is concerned, she has been escaping from arrest, therefore, the police applied for issuance of arrest warrants by the Judicial Magistrate under section 37 of the Police Act, which has been ordered to be issued. However, as per investigation report, the petitioner is fleeing from her arrest, therefore, charge sheet against her has been filed under section 299 CrPC. 5. Counsel for petitioner submits that the deceased was residing with her husband at Hyderabad and the petitioner had no indulgence in their interse matrimonial affairs. Allegations leveled in the FIR against the petitioner that deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry and the petitioner is liable for "her dowry death" are after thought, concocted and false. Counsel submits that the petitioner's son is serving in Indian Army and posted at Hyderabad, where the deceased was residing with her husband, and they both returned at Alwar on 20-6-2022 itself. The deceased committed suicide on 23-6-2022 because of her own reasons, for which the petitioner may not be held liable merely on account of the fact that the deceased died within a period of seven years of her marriage. There is no connecting evidence against the petitioner to draw a presumption against her to harass the deceased and to be involved for offences u/s. 498A, 304B and 306 IPC. 6. Counsel has argued that despite of specific guidelines by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mirzaiqbal v. State of UP [ AIR 2022 SC 69 ] and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP [ (2012) 10 SCC 741 ] that family members of husband should not be made accused, the police is harassing the petitioner and inclined to arrest her, despite the fact that the petitioner is an old lady having no concern with the family of her son and his wife (now deceased). Counsel made a prayer to quash the impugned FIR and investigation thereupon. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 8. The contours of powers to quash the criminal proceedings by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined in various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case of V. Ravi Kumar v. State [ (2019) 14 SCC 568 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of allegations made in the complaint. 9. 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. 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 allegations made therein. The parameters laid down by the Apex Court in celebrated judgments delivered in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1960 SC 866 ] and State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] have been reiterated. 10. Having considered the case of petitioner for quashing the impugned FIR wherein after thorough investigation charge sheet for offences/s. 498A, 304B and 306 IPC has been filed against the petitioner under section 299 CrPC along with the charge sheet against the petitioner's son Rajesh Kumar Saini, the husband of the deceased, for similar offences after his arrest. From perusal of the FIR it is apparent that there are serious allegations against the petitioner in person to harass the daughter of complainant for demand of dowry. There are allegations that the petitioner being mother-in-law of deceased usually harassed the deceased for not bringing sufficient dowry and subjected her to cruelty mentally and physically. There are allegations that the deceased was kept to starve by the petitioner. It has been contended in the FIR that twenty days ago from the lodging of the FIR, the deceased candidly declined to go at her matrimonial home because of the fear of cruelty by in-laws including the petitioner. There are allegations that the deceased was kept to starve by the petitioner. It has been contended in the FIR that twenty days ago from the lodging of the FIR, the deceased candidly declined to go at her matrimonial home because of the fear of cruelty by in-laws including the petitioner. However, on persuasion by complainant and other family members she was sent to matrimonial home. Allegation has also been leveled that one day before i.e. on 21-6-2022 the complainant received a phone call by the deceased about her torture by in-laws for the demand of dowry, and thereafter, on 23-6-2022 the complainant received the information of the death of deceased. 11. In respect of allegations of cruelty subjected to deceased mentally and physically for and in connection with the demand of dowry like car or cash etc., that too soon before the death, statements of family members as well as neighbours were recorded. Anita, sister of deceased, Narendra, brother of deceased, Ramu Saini, a relative, have corroborated allegations of cruelty with the deceased by her in-laws mainly by the petitioner being mother-in-law of deceased. Neighbors Arjun Singh and Ram Kishore have also stated that the deceased was being tortured by her in-laws, mainly by her mother-in-law, for the demand of dowry. It may be noted that the death of deceased has occurred at the house of her in-law in abnormal circumstances. As per admitted case of the petitioner, the deceased returned from Hyderabad on 20-6-2022 and soon thereafter on 23-6-2022 she died because of unnatural death in abnormal circumstances. On the basis of evidence and material collected during course of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet only against the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased. In such circumstances, it is difficult to held, at the initial stage, that the involvement of the petitioner is false or based on concocted and after thought story. This is undisputed fact that the deceased has died unnatural death on 23-6-2022, within a period of seven years of the marriage, which was solemnized on 31-10-2017. The death of deceased on 23-6-2022 was in abnormal circumstances at the house of her in-laws. Therefore, in the light of allegations made in the FIR and evidence collected during course of investigation the involvement of the petitioner, mother-in-law of deceased, in the present case can not be presumed to be improbable. 12. The death of deceased on 23-6-2022 was in abnormal circumstances at the house of her in-laws. Therefore, in the light of allegations made in the FIR and evidence collected during course of investigation the involvement of the petitioner, mother-in-law of deceased, in the present case can not be presumed to be improbable. 12. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out a clear case of the petitioner of no evidence or the allegation against the petitioner is false. At the stage of considering a petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR an exceptional case is required to be made out that even if allegations made in FIR and evidence collected during investigation is taken as it is, than also no case as alleged is made out. But this is not a such case. As per allegations in FIR and evidence collected thereupon a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for offences u/s. 498A, 304B and 306 IPC. In addition to above, the conduct of the petitioner can also be noted that she is fleeing from investigation and the police has been constrained to obtain her arrest warrant under section 37 of the Police Act and had to file charge sheet against the petitioner under section 299 CrPC. 13. In totality of facts and circumstances of the case no exceptional case has been proved on behalf of the petitioner to quash the impugned FIR by this court in its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC. Needless to reiterate the settled proposition of law that such powers can be exercised only in rarest of rare cases, where any case is made out, within categories as laid down by the Apex Court in case of R.P. Kapoor (supra) and Choudhary Bhajan Lal (supra). The case of petitioner does not fall in any of the category as expounded by the Apex Court in case of Choudhary Bhajan Lal (supra). However, the petitioner is at liberty to make her defences/pleas before the trial court including at the stage of charge. 14. In such circumstances, this court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC to quash the impugned FIR and consequential proceeding including the challan filed under section 299 CrPC against the petitioner for offences u/s. 498A, 304B and 306 IPC. 15. As a result, the present criminal misc. 14. In such circumstances, this court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC to quash the impugned FIR and consequential proceeding including the challan filed under section 299 CrPC against the petitioner for offences u/s. 498A, 304B and 306 IPC. 15. As a result, the present criminal misc. petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 16. Stay applications and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. S.B. Crl.M.P. No. 1195/2023: 17. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the complainant feeling aggrieved of inaction of the police for not arresting the mother-in-law of deceased, against whom arrest warrant under section 37 of the Police Act has been issued and charge sheet for offences u/s. 498A, 304B and 306 IPC has been filed under section 299 CrPC. 18. This court finds that the petition No.8531/2022, filed by the accused mother-in-law, seeking to quash the impugned FIR has been dismissed on merits today itself, therefore, it is needless to observe that the police shall proceed to act upon pursuant to arrest warrant issued against the accused. However, the petitioner complainant shall have the liberty to raise his grievances before the trial court, where charge sheet against the accused has already been filed under section 299 CrPC. 19. With the aforesaid observation, instant petition stands disposed of. 20. Stay applications and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. SB. Crl.M.P. No. 6433/2023: 21. By way of this petition the complainant has raised a grievance that the car Renault Kwid RJ02 CD7730, was although in the name of husband of deceased, but was purchased out of funds provided by the complainant; however the car has not been seized by the police during investigation. 22. It appears from the record that in this respect the complainant moved an application under section 216 CrPC before the trial court, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 28-4-2023. 23. It is not in dispute that the provision of Section 216 CrPC pertains to powers of the court to alter charges, therefore, it can be held that the complainant moved improper application, under wrong provision of law invoking powers under section 216 CrPC, under which no direction could be issued by the trial court, even if the car, being one "dowry article" has not been seized by Investigating Officer. However, it is open for the complainant to establish before the trial court that the car in question and other articles, if left from seizure, were purchased out of funds provided by the complainant, which need to be seized and in that respect the complainant may move appropriate application before the trial court. 24. It is hereby observed that if any such application is moved by the complainant, the same shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law, without being influenced and prejudiced by the order dated 28-4-2023 dismissing the application under section 216 CrPC. 25. With the above observation and liberty, instant petition stands disposed of. 26. Stay applications and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 27. A copy of order be placed in each file.