HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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.
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Kirti W/o Ankit Poonia D/o Shri Sanjay Saharan, Resident
of 54K-Block, Sri Ganganagar.
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
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
2. The allegation was that the marriage in this case was
solemnized between the complainant and the present petitioner
(2 of 6)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.