Deepak Arora And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 2 June, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2949/2017

1. Deepak Arora S/o Late Shri Subhash Chand Arora,
aged about 28 years, Resident of 82 Jawahar Nagar,
Cement Factory Road, Bajariya, P.S. Mantown,
District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
2. Monika Meena D/o Prem Chand Meena, wife of
Deepak Arora, aged about 20 years, Resident of
Village Soup, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli (Raj.). At
present R/o 82 Jawahar Nagar, Cement Factory
Road, Bajariya, P.S. Mantown, District Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.)
…Prosecutrix/Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
….Respondent.

2. Vijendra Singh son of Shri Laturiya, by caste meena,
Resident of Village Soup, Tehsil Nadoti, District
Karauli (Raj.)
…Complainant/Respondent

DATE OF ORDER ::: 2nd June, 2017

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam for the Petitioners.
Mr. N S Dhakad, PP.

Petitioner No. 1 accused and petitioner No. 2 prosecutrix

have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for

quashing impugned FIR No. 319/2017 under Sections 363 366 IPC

Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered at

Police Station Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur.

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2

complainant submitted a report before SHO, Police Station Gangapur

City, stating therein that:-

“fuosnu gS fd eksfudk esjs cM+s HkkbZ izsepUnj ehuk dh iqh gS tks xr
o”kZ 201516 esa lokbZek/kksiqj mlds rkm uoyfd’kksj ehuk tks
lokbZek/kksiqj esa jgrs gS ds ikl jgdj ikbZ dh Fkh og vaxzsth lkfgR;
dk V;w’ku djus cky eafnj dkWyksuh lokbZek/kksiqj jkst vkrh tkrh Fkh
ftl ij nhid vjksMk tokgj dkWyksuh vk;Z lekt eafnj ds lkeus
lokbZek/kksiqj jkst ihNk djrk Fkk o xanh fu;r j[krk Fkk ftldh
lwpuk eksfudk us uoyfd’kksj dks nh rks uoyfd’kksj us nhid vjksMk
dks lek cwkdj NksM fn;k rks Hkh nhid vjksMk ugh ekuk fQj ge
yMdh dk fdjk;s ds edku ij xaxkiqj flVh ysdj vk x;sA fnukad
17-05-2017 dks eksfudk dh le; 11-00 ,-,e- ls jktdh; LuksrdksRrj
egkfo xaxkiqj flVh esa dEI;wVj dh ijh{kk FkhA eSa eksfudk dks
xaxkiqj dkWyst NksMdj ?kj vk x;k tc ijh{kk lekIr gqbZ rks eSa
yM+dh dks dkWyst es ysus x;k rks yMdh dkWyst esa ugha feyh eSus
yMdh dks dkQh ryk’k fd;k fj’rsnkj o mudh lgsfy;ksa ds ;gka Hkh
ryk’k fd;s ysfdu og ugh feyh vc irk pyk gS fd esjh Hkrhth
eksfudk dks nhid vjksMk cgyk Qqlykdj Hkxkdj ys x;kA vr%
egksn; ls fuosnu gS fd nhid vjksMk ds f[kykQ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh
djus dh d`ik djsaA”

On the aforesaid report, impugned FIR No. 319/2017 was

registered at and investigation was commenced. Now matter is under

investigation.

Learned counsel for petitioners Shri Shyam Bihari Gautam

submits that DOB of petitioner No. 1 accused is 08/06/1988 and the

DOB of petitioner No. 2 prosecutrix is 14/01/1997, therefore, both

are major. Since both belong to different cast, they have contacted

marriage with their sweet will without the consent of their family

members. The family members of petitioner No. 2 are opposing this

marriage. Uncle of petitioner No. 2 lodged false and fabricated FIR

against petitioner No. 1 regarding abduction of petitioner No. 2 while

petitioner No. 1 left her parental home on her sweet will and wants to

stay with petitioner No. 1 as his wife after marriage. The marriage

took place on 23/05/2017 and the same was got registered before

Registrar Hindu, Marriages Ghaziabad on the even date. He submits

that after marriage continuing investigation in FIR No. 319/2017 is

futile exercise and misuse of process of law, therefore, same may be
quashed.

IO Shri Hari Mohan Sharma, Superintendent of Police, CO,

Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur is present in person who

submitted factual report of the matter through PP. Shri N S Dhakad

which is taken on record.

Learned PP. Shri N s Dhakad submits that statement of

prosecutrix has already been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and

petitioner No. 1 accused has also been interrogated by the IO and

documents regarding their marriage have also been taken on record.

From the investigation, it reveals that petitioners entered into wed-

lock with their sweet will and both are major.

I have considering the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioners and learned PP. and perused the available

record. Since petitioners are major, they have contacted their

marriage with their sweet will without any fear or coercion. They have

earlier preferred S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 196/2017 before this

Court for police protection which was disposed of by this Court vide

order dated 25.05.2017 and SHO Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur

was directed to ensure necessary vigil that no harm is caused to the

life and liberty of the petitioners and their family members at the

hands of thous, who are opposing the marriage.

In the matter of State of Haryana Ors. Vs. Ch.

Bhajan Lal Ors. [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335] Hon’ble Supreme

Court framed seven grounds for quashing the FIR as under:-

“105. 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 extra-ordinary
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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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.”

Here in the case in hand since petitioners have
contacted marriage with their sweet will still uncle of petitioner
No. 2 lodged FIR regarding abduction of petitioner No. 2. Since
petitioner No. 2 is present in person before this Court who is
identified by her counsel Shri Shyam Bihari Gautam and has
already been examined by IO. Her statement has already been
recorded by the IO. IO has also interrogated petitioner No 1
accused and as per IO both are major and contacted their
marriage with their sweet will without any coercion.

In view of it, continuing criminal investigation in the
impugned FIR is abuse of process of law, therefore, in view of
State of Haryana Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal Ors.
(Supra) judgment, this misc. petition is allowed and the
impugned FIR No. 319/2017 registered at Police Station
Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) for offence under
Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act is quashed and set aside.

[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J.

Komal/183.

Leave a Comment

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