HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3441 / 2017
Nitu Gudiya W/o Sh. Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, E-32,
Rameshwar Nagar, Basani First Phase, Jodhpur At Present Residing
At Opposite Kumharon Ka Mandir, First B Road, Sardarpura,
1. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
2. Rajendra Kumar S/o Dhrma Ram, E-32, Rameshwar Nagar,
Basani First Phase, Jodhpur.
3. Dharma Ram S/o Kishana Ram, E-32, Rameshwar Nagar,
Basani First Phase, Jodhpur.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Rajesh Yadav, SHO
Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Investigating Officer
Mr. Mahaveer Singh for complainant
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
1. Petitioner has moved this criminal misc. petition seeking a
direction for fair investigation in F.I.R. No.96/2017 lodged at Police
Station Women (West), District Jodhpur and for a further direction
to the Investigating Agency to make a strict compliance of the
order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the High Court in S.B. Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.7353/2017.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has moved the Court below under the Domestic Violence
(2 of 3)
Act and residence order has been passed in her favour on
05.06.2017 which was continued vide order dated 13.07.2017.
3. It is contended that the petitioner is residing in the premises
since her marriage on 16.04.2016 and the respondents are not
permitting the petitioner to reside therein.
4. Counsel for the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor
has opposed the misc. petition.
5. Investigating Officer and S.H.O. are present in Court in
pursuance of the order dated 09.10.2017.
6. It is contended that charge-sheet is ready to be filed and
only because one of the co-accused is to be arrested, charge-
sheet has not been filed. It is also contended that prima facie, the
case is made out against the respondent.
7. Counsel for the respondent-husband has contended that the
property in question belongs to his father who has partitioned the
property amongst his two sons. Respondent No.2 has given his
portion to the petitioner for residence but the petitioner is insisting
on staying in the portion which has been given to the brother of
8. It is contended that the petitioner has filed a case under
Section 354 I.P.C. against brother-in-law and father-in-law in
which Police has submitted a negative final report.
9. I have considered the contentions.
10. Considering the contentions of counsel for the State that
Police has already concluded the investigation and is about to file
the charge-sheet and the filing of charge-sheet is delayed because
(3 of 3)
one of the co-accused is yet to be arrested as also the fact that
the Investigating Officer has prima facie come to the conclusion
that the respondents have committed the offence. No order is
required to be passed for directing fair investigation in the case.
11. As far as the compliance of the order dated 11.09.2017
passed by the High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.7353/2017 is concerned, Investigating Officer has been
directed to protect the lawful rights of residence of the
complainant. The matter thereof is pending before the Court
below which has passed residence order infavour of the petitioner.
12. No ground is made out for passing any order. In view of the
fact that the matter is pending before the Court below which is
competent to pass appropriate orders.
13. The criminal misc. petition is, accordingly, disposed.