HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2337 / 2016
1.Vimla Devi W/o Tara Chand, aged 55 years
2. Tara Chand S/o Ganesha Ram
3. Parvender S/o Tara Chand, aged 31 years,
All by caste Arora, resident of House No. 6-A, Gali No.3, Prem
Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.
4. Baby @ Simran W/o Lovly Chhabra, aged 35 years, resident of
Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh.
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Leela W/o Parvinder, resident of Ward No.2, Suratgarh
District Sri Ganganagar.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S.Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP with Mr. Niket
Kumar IO and Mr. R.Bhatnagar.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned P.P. assisted
by I.O. and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the
material on record.
By way of the instant petition under Section; 482 Cr.P.C., the
petitioners herein have approached this Court for assailing the
proceedings of the F.I.R. No. 394/2016 registered at P.S.
Suratgarh City District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under
It is the admitted prosecution case that the respondent no.2
(2 of 3)
Smt. Leela entered into a love marriage with the present
petitioner no. 3 Parvinder in the year 2015. However, the
matrimonial relations went sour on which Smt. Leela lodged an
F.I.R. No. 244/2016 against the petitioners for the offences under
investigation of the said F.I.R., the parties reached to a settlement
and accordingly on the written application of the respondent
complainant, the I.O. submitted a negative final report with the
conclusion that the complainant lodged the F.I.R. in a fit of anger
on the basis of concocted allegations. The matrimonial relations
were resumed and soon thereafter, the present F.I.R. came to be
lodged. It is an admitted position as emerging from record that
Smt. Leela has filed a protest petition in relation to earlier
prosecution and the same is pending consideration before the
competent Court. When Smt. Leela was examined under Section
161 Cr.P.C. in the present case, she categorically admitted that
she was living separately with her husband in a distinct portion of
the joint family property. The allegations of assault etc. are also
specifically attributed to the husband i.e. petitioner no.3.
In this background and keeping in view the law as laid down
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta Anr. Vs.
State of Jharkhand Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SC-3363, this
Court feels that allowing prosecution of petitioners no. 1 and 2
being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant and
the petitioner no. 4 being the sister-in-law (Nanad) for the above
offences is absolutely unwarranted and amounts to a gross abuse
of process of law. However, the petitioner no.3 is liable to be
(3 of 3)
prosecuted as the allegations levelled against him do indicate the
ingredients of cognizable offences.
In view of the above discussion, the misc. petition deserves
to be and is hereby allowed in part. Further proceedings of the
impunged F.I.R. No. 394/2016 registered at P.S. Suratgarh City
are quashed qua the petitioner no.1 Vimla Devi, petitioner no.2
Tara Chand and petitioner no. 4 Baby @ Simran. However, the
investigation shall continue against the petitioner no. 3 Parvinder.
In case the I.O. comes to a conclusion regarding offences being
proved against petitioner no. 3, then the report of investigation
shall be submitted in the Court which is seized of the protest
petition referred to supra and both the proceedings shall be
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.