Ankit & Ors vs State & Anr on 1 November, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 362 / 2017

1. Ankit Poonia S/o Shri Ashok Poonia

2. Ashok Poonia S/o Shri Ranjeet Poonia

3. Smt. Kamlesh Poonia W/o Shri Ashok Poonia, All Residents of
Panchkosi, Tehsil Abohar District Fazilka (punjab).

4. Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar, Resident of Deengarh
Tehsil Sangaria District Hanumangarh.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Kirti W/o Ankit Poonia D/o Shri Sanjay Saharan, Resident
of 54K-Block, Sri Ganganagar.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mahesh Bora, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr.S.R.Godara, Mr.Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit PP for the State.

Mr.Pradeep Shah, Mr.Sunil Beniwal
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
Reserved on 04/10/2017

Pronounced on 01/11/2017

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been preferred for quashing FIR No.269/2016 registered at

Police Station, Mahila Thana, Sri Ganganagar for the offences

under Sections 406, 498A, 354, 377, 420, 467, 468, 471 and

120B IPC.

2. The allegation was that the marriage in this case was

solemnized between the complainant and the present petitioner
(2 of 6)
[CRLMP-362/2017]

No.1 on 26.01.2015 and an amount of Rs.4 crores was spent and

also Rs.85,00,000/- was given. It is also alleged that Rs.1 crore in

cash were also given. Further allegation is that the Stridhan and

the documents of the property in question have been in

possession of the present petitioners. The engagement between

the parties had happened on 23.01.2014 and in that one Mahindra

XUV 500 vehicle was given and the father of the complainant

spent Rs.45,00,000/-. The accused/petitioner No.1 is a MBBS

Doctor.

3. It was also alleged by the complainant that she was

insulted in the house of petitioner No.1 and his family members. It

was also alleged that the complainant was given beating and Rs.5

crores were sought as dowry to establish a hospital at Chandigarh.

It was further alleged that the complainant was given a groom and

a soap as gift for the marriage, so as to conduct the domestic

works. The brother of the complainant was threatened that if he

does not give the amount of Rs.5 crores, he and his sister, that is

the present complainant shall be killed. The amount of Rs.5 crores

was repeatedly sought, and on 07.04.2015, Rs.2,00,000/- were

paid to petitioner No.3. Petitioners No.1, 2 3 made a phone call

to the father of the complainant to arrange a house for petitioner

No.1 in Chandigarh, or he may commit suicide. With the help of

maternal uncle of the complainant, who was living in London, the

house was provided in Mamta Enclave Jikarpur. Thereafter,

petitioners No.2 and 3 under intoxicated liquor asked the

complainant to give Rs.5 crores and when she refused, she was

abused and beaten.

(3 of 6)
[CRLMP-362/2017]

4. Further on 10.07.2016, Rs.70,000/- were sent and

petitioners No.1, 2 3 quarreled with the maternal aunt of the

complainant and abused her for not arranging the house at

Chandigarh and Rs.5 crores. It was further alleged that on

08.09.2015, the complainant came to Sri Ganganagar and her

father was making efforts for arranging the house. All the

petitioners came to Panchkosi, and then, they went to Chandigarh

and started living in a rented house in Sector-20, Chandigarh. The

petitioners’ behaviour was cruel towards the complainant and

petitioner No.2 was coming into her room without knocking,

causing embarrassment to the complainant, and which even

extended to molestation on one occasion. The complainant also

alleged that petitioner No.1 indulged in unnatural sex with her.

Thereafter, the FIR was registered. The status report of the

investigation was also submitted.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted

that originally the dispute was arising out of a 9 kila land, which

was originally gifted to the daughter-in-law, that is the present

complainant. Furthermore, the land was mortgaged to a Bank,

and the allegation of the complainant is pertaining to the same, as

her signatures and her thumb impression are alleged to have been

forged for mortgaging the property belonging to the complainant.

The statement of the complainant has also been recorded, which,

as per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, reflects that the

dispute originally is regarding the land in question.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also

submitted that the investigation is shoddy, as a dead person,
(4 of 6)
[CRLMP-362/2017]

namely, Prithvi Raj, whose Death Certificate is on record, has been

shown to have given the statement after his death. Learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that

respondent No.2 created fake and forged documents to make a

new Passport, for which an FIR was lodged against her.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also shown

the document of the Income Tax Department seeking clarification

from the complainant regarding the amount in question. Learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the

allegations levelled do not match the income tax details of the

complainant or her family members.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the

father of the complainant was an old car dealer and the two small

amounts stated were in lieu of one car and tractor, which belonged

to petitioner No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated

that the offence under Section 377 IPC was highly improbable and

the allegations were not true. Learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners further submitted that the proof of the expenditure of

Rs.5 crores in connection with the marriage and the allegation of

seeking the said amount as dowry cannot be substantiated by the

complainant and thus, the same are bald and vague allegations.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further

stated that the FSL in respect of the mortgage of the land in

question, that is 9 kila land, was not sought by the investigators,

so as to ascertain whether the land in question was rightly or

wrongly mortgaged or not. Learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners also stated that a detailed representation has been
(5 of 6)
[CRLMP-362/2017]

given, which as not been considered by the official respondent.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further

stated that the ingredients of the offence in relation to

entrustment, demand and refusal are not made out, and thus, the

commission of the offence is not made out, on the face of it.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor has stated that a detailed

factual report, which is taken on record, clearly reflects that

almost every aspect, which has been raised on behalf of the

petitioners, has been dealt with. Learned Public Prosecutor

however, states that the offences under Sections 406, 498A, 354,

323, 420 and 120B IPC are prima facie made out, and for the

offence under Section 377 IPC, further investigation is going on.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent have stated that on

the face of the FIR, the offences are constituted and it will not be

appropriate for this Court to go into the details and level of proof

in the investigation. Learned counsel for the respondent have

further stated the document shown by learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioners could be utilized by the petitioners during the trial

proceedings, but at this infant stage of the criminal proceedings,

only parameter that call for the indulgence would be if the offence

is not made out and if the offence alleged was highly improbable.

13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in

light of the parameters for grant of indulgence under Section 482

Cr.P.C., and on a careful perusal of the record as well as the

documents and the status report submitted by the learned Public

Prosecutor, this Court is of the opinion that the investigation so far

carried out may have certain loopholes, but the loopholes in the
(6 of 6)
[CRLMP-362/2017]

investigation cannot become a ground for interference under the

constrained jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

14. So far as quashing of the FIR at this stage when the

offences are prima facie made out, on the face of the FIR, is

concerned and in light of the investigation report, this Court is

satisfied that the investigation has been conducted at length, and

each and every aspect of the allegations, which have been levelled

in the FIR, have been almost touched. Moreover, this Court is very

cautious of the fact that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

is a very constrained jurisdiction and any interference for quashing

the FIR would not be appropriate.

15. The allegations, rightly or wrongly, are there on record

and the offences under Sections 406, 498A, 354, 323, 420 and

120B IPC are prima facie made out, as the status report, which

seems to be very genuinely, is reflecting the status of the

investigation.

16. In light of the aforesaid discussion, no case for

interference is made out.

17. Consequently, the present misc. petition is dismissed.

The stay application also stands disposed of.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

Skant/-

Leave a Comment

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