HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3109 / 2016
1. Suresh Tiwari s/o Shri Gopikishan Sharma, b/c Brahmin, aged
45 years, r/o 367 West Mangalwar Peth, Solapur (North),
2. Ashok Balkrishan Tiwari, s/o Shri Balkrishan Tiwari, b/c
Brahmin, aged 59 years, r/o 26 A, Mahalaxmi Housing Society,
Shivyogi Shelgi, Sholapur, North (Maharashtra).
3. Smt.Archana w/o Shri Ashok Balkrishan Tiwari, b/c Brahmin,
aged 55 years, r/o 26 A, Mahalaxmi Housing Society, Shivyogi
Shelgi, Sholapur, North (Maharashtra).
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Smt.Neeta d/o Shri Devilal, b/c Brahmin, r/o Bijlighar Ke Paas,
Borunda, District Jodhpur.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vikas Chauhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit PP for the State.
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has been preferred against the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Criminal
Revision No.167/2015 affirming the order passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara, District Jodhpur in C.R.
No.167/2009, P.S. Bilara, District Jodhpur Case No.362/2010 for
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the
entrustment of the property in question, which is the necessary
ingredient of the offence, is not made out. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has pointed out that the other ingredients of Section
498A are also not available in the FIR. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further pointed out that the FIR is belated and has
(2 of 2)
been lodged after more than ten years.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out
that no list of dowry articles or the demand articles has been
given, and thus, the charge-sheet is bad, as it is very vague and
no concrete conclusions are there.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that
though the marriage had happened at Borunda, but the complete
incident had taken place at Solapur (Maharashtra), and therefore,
the learned court below did not have any jurisdiction.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioners.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on
a careful perusal of the record alongwith the impugned orders
passed by the learned courts below, this Court is of the opinion
that the constrained jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot
be exercised in this case, where the charge-sheet has already
been filed, and on the face of FIR and the documents, the offence
has been found to be made out. The impugned orders also
concluded the issue reasonably. Thus, at this stage, no
interference is called for in the present petition.
7. Consequently, the present misc. petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to take up all their
issues, including the jurisdiction and the offence not being made
out during further proceedings of the trial.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.