Raj. HC: DV Quash against Married Sister-in-law for vague & omnibus allegations

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2187 / 2017

Smt. Monika Sharma D/o Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma B/c Brahman,
R/o BSNL Colony, Jaisalmer (In the Complaint Address is Given
House No.1021, Barkat Nagar, Kisan Marg, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur).—-Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

2. Smt. Meenu Sharma W/o Pankaj Sharma, D/o Murli Manohar Sharma, Aged About 34 Years.

3. Ku. Aparna Sharma D/o Pankaj Sharma, aged about 10 years
Minor Through Her Mother Smt. Meenu Sharma
Both residing at House No.2497, Opposite Masjid, Telipada, Bapu Bazar, Jaipur

4. Pankaj Sharma S/o Vijay Kumar Sharma

5. Vijay Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhagwan Dutt Sharma

6. Durga Devi W/o Vijay Kumar Sharma

All residents of House No.1021, Barkat Nagar, Kisan Marg, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur —-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek,
P.P.Mr. Anshuman Saxena Adv.

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment 16/08/2017

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the complaint No. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2187/2017] 29/2017 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur for the offence under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is the married sister-in-law of respondent No.2. Petitoner got married on 22.11.2002 and is residing in her matrimonial home at Jaisalmer. Respondent No.2 got married to the brother of the petitioner on 20.02.2006. Brother of the petitioner is residing at Jaipur. Petitioner is working as a teacher in a Government School. Petitioner has never lived in the shared household to constitute dosmestic relationship with the complainant in terms of the definition given in the Act.

Learned counsel for the complainant (Respondent No.2) has submitted that all the respondents arrayed in the complaint had been harassing the complainant on account of insufficiency of dowry.

A perusal of the copy of the complaint available on record reveals that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. General allegations have been levelled against all the respondents. Petitioner is the married sister-in-law of the complainant and had rather got married much before the marriage of the complainant was performed with the brother of the petitioner. Petitioner is residing at Jaisalmer whereas the complainant stayed in the matrimonial home at Jaipur after her marriage. Petitioner is working as a teacher in a Government (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2187/2017] School. It appears that petitioner has been falsely involved in this case merely because of her relationship with the husband of the complainant.

In Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint No. 29/2017 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur for the offence under Section 12 of the Act and all the consequential proceedigns, arising therefrom qua petitioner are quashed.

(SABINA) J.

S.Kumawat/M-3

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *