Nitu Gudiya vs State & Ors on 12 October, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
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,
Jodhpur.

—-Petitioner
Versus

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.

—-Respondents
__
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
12/10/2017

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)
[CRLMP-3441/2017]

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

the respondent.

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)
[CRLMP-3441/2017]

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.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI)J.

Arti/23

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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