Ashish & Ors vs State & Anr on 2 August, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1462 / 2017

1. Ashish S/o Rajendra Prasad

2. Smt. Gayatri W/o Rajendra Prasad

3. Anushree D/o Rajendra Prasad,
All by Caste Sevag Brahmin, Resident of Nainchi Bagh, Mavdiyo Ki
Ghati, Near Vidhyashala School, Outside Chandpole, Jodhpur.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Jyoti D/o Prem Prakash, By Caste Sevag Brahmin,
Resident of Ward No. 21, Churu.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devesh Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Panwar, PP
Mr. Chaitnaya Gehlot, for the complainant
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/08/2017

1. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.39/2017 dated

04.05.2017 police Station Mahila Thana, Churu for the offence

under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the

judgment of Rajesh Sharma Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Anr.,

decided on 27.07.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.1265/2017, in

which the following directions have been given, which reads as

under:-

(2 of 5)
[CRLMP-1462/2017]

“19. Thus, after careful consideration of the whole
issue, we consider it fit to give following
directions :-

i) (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare
Committees be constituted by the District Legal
Services Authorities preferably comprising of
three members. The constitution and working of
such committees may be reviewed from time to
time and at least once in a year by the District
and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the
Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.

READ  Ramesh, S/O Bisan Parteki-vs-The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 2001

(b) The Committees may be constituted out of
para legal volunteers/social workers/retired
persons/wives of working officers/other citizens
who may be found suitable and willing.

(c) The Committee members will not be called as
witnesses.

(d) Every complaint under Section 498A received
by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and
looked into by such committee. Such committee
may have interaction with the parties personally
or by means of telephone or any other mode of
communication including electronic
communication.

(e) Report of such committee be given to the
Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it
latest within one month from the date of receipt
of complaint.

(f) The committee may give its brief report about
the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter.

(g) Till report of the committee is received, no
arrest should normally be effected.

(3 of 5)
[CRLMP-1462/2017]

(h) The report may be then considered by the
Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own
merit.

(i) Members of the committee may be given such
basic minimum training as may be considered
necessary by the Legal Services Authority from
time to time.

(j) The Members of the committee may be given
such honorarium as may be considered viable.

(k) It will be open to the District and Sessions
Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered
necessary and proper.

ii) Complaints under Section 498A and other
connected offences may be investigated only by a
designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such
designations may be made within one month
from today. Such designated officer may be
required to undergo training for such duration
(not less than one week) as may be considered
appropriate. The training may be completed
within four months from today;

READ  Bandu vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 March, 2007

iii) In cases where a settlement is reached, it will
be open to the District and Sessions Judge or any
other senior Judicial Officer nominated by him in
the district to dispose of the proceedings
including closing of the criminal case if dispute
primarily relates to matrimonial discord;

iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one
clear day’s notice to the Public
Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be
decided as far as possible on the same day.
Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by
itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance
or other rights of wife/minor children can
(4 of 5)
[CRLMP-1462/2017]

otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in
dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima
facie truth of the allegations, requirement of
further arrest/ custody and interest of justice
must be carefully weighed;

v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of
India impounding of passports or issuance of Red
Corner Notice should not be a routine;

vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a
designated senior judicial officer nominated by
the District Judge to club all connected cases
between the parties arising out of matrimonial
disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the
Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and

vii) Personal appearance of all family members
and particularly outstation members may not be
required and the trial court ought to grant
exemption from personal appearance or permit
appearance by video conferencing without
adversely affecting progress of the trial.

viii) These directions will not apply to the offences
involving tangible physical injuries or death. ”

READ  State Of Haryana vs Jai Parkash And Ors. on 14 March, 2000

3. Learned Public Prosecutor however, submitted that

though the word of caution regarding the matrimonial cases have

been given by the Hon’ble Apex Court but the facts of the case are

such that during investigation the prima facie case of the offence

to be constituted under Sections 498-A, 406 of the IPC are made

out against the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2. The status

report furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor also reflects that

there is consistency in the allegations levelled by the complainant.

(5 of 5)
[CRLMP-1462/2017]

4. The petitioner has also raised the issue of jurisdiction

pertaining to the Churu District to which learned Public Prosecutor

has stated that even once single incident in the territory

concerned was sufficient to attract the jurisdiction. The Section

482 of Cr.P.C. is limited jurisdiction and unless on the strict

parameters of Bhajan Lal which is a cardinal precedent law to be

exercised interference only when called for by this Court under the

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. In light of the aforementioned facts, this Court is not

inclined to interfere in the present FIR, hence, the same is

dismissed.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

sudheer

Leave a Comment

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