Suresh & Ors vs State & Anr on 9 November, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
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),
Maharashtra.

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).

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan.

2. Smt.Neeta d/o Shri Devilal, b/c Brahmin, r/o Bijlighar Ke Paas,
Borunda, District Jodhpur.

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vikas Chauhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit PP for the State.
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
09/11/2017

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

the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

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)
[CRLMP-3109/2016]

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.

Skant/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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