HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2849 / 2014
Ashok Beniwal S/o Late Shri Om Prakash, aged 47 years, resident
of Jawahar Nagar, Bhadra Road, Adampur Tehsil Adampur, District
1. The State of Rajasthan.
2. Hans Ram S/o Shri Ghisa Ram Jat, resident of Bhadu
Hospital, New Mandi Gharsana Tehsil Gharsna, District Sri
3. Smt. Rameshwari Devi W/o Shri Ashok Beniwal D/o Ghisa
Ram, aged 42 years, resident of Ward No.8, Near C.R. Model
Public School, Sadulshahar District Sri Ganganagar. At
present residing at Bhadu Hospital, New Mandi Gharsana
Tehsil Gharsna, District Sri Ganganagar.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. D.S. Thind.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.
Mr. Rakesh Matoria.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Date of Judgment: 06/04/2018
The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the
petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR
No.609/2014 registered at the Police Station Gharsana, District Sri
Ganganagar and all consequential proceedings sought to be taken
thereunder against the petitioners for the offences under Sections
420 and 406 IPC.
Facts in brief are that the respondent complainant Smt.
(2 of 4)
Rameshwari lodged an FIR No.267/2013 against the petitioner
Ashok and few others with the allegation of demand of dowry,
harassment, etc. While investigation of the FIR is still being
continued, the present FIR came to be lodged through a complaint
filed by the complainant Rameshwari and her brother Hansraj with
an allegation that Hansraj purchased a new car bearing No.RJ-13-
C-4171 and gifted the same to the petitioner. The car’s
registration stood in the name of Hansraj. The accused Ashok
requested Hansraj to transfer the car to his name and since the
relations between the parties were cordial at that time, the
complainant signed and gave the required forms to Ashok for
getting the registration of the car transferred in his name. In the
meantime, the relations between the parties fell out and the FIR
No.267/2013 was registered against Ashok Beniwal. During
investigation of the said FIR, the complainant came to know that
Ashok had sold the car to somebody else and had also transferred
the documents thereof to that person. The petitioner Ashok has
sought quashing of the said FIR on the ground that it is a second
FIR on the same facts and further with a specific assertion that
registration of car continues in the name of the complainant
Hansraj and that it is lying in Rameswhari’s house at Hisar and
that the FIR has been lodged with sheer malafide and ulterior
Shri Kharlia, learned Sr. Counsel representing the petitioner
urged that ex-facie, in view of the fact that an earlier FIR for the
offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC had been registered
(3 of 4)
against the petitioner at the instance of the complainant,
registration of the second FIR for the same offence during the
pendency of the earlier one is totally unjustified and amounts to a
gross abuse of process of law.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Matoria
learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and
urged that the petitioner not only fraudulently retained the gifted
car, the registration whereof stands in the name of the
complainant Hansraj but has sold and transferred the documents
thereof to some other person unauthorisedly and as such, no
interference should be made in the FIR at its inception.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that Smt. Rameshwari filed an earlier FIR
No.267/2013 against Ashok and others for the offences under
Sections 498A and 406 IPC the investigation whereof is still
pending and which has been ordered to be transferred to Hisar by
an order passed today in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.2416/2013. Thus, if at all the disputed car constitutes an
article of dowry and has been misappropriated then manifestly,
the investigation of this allegation would have to be made in the
earlier FIR only and registration of a second FIR is not permissible
and warranted on the same allegations as has been laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State
(4 of 4)
of Kerala Ors., reported in (2001)6 SCC 181. Furthermore,
as per the factual report received by this Court in connection with
the previous FIR No.267/2013, it is manifest that the registration
of the car still stands in the name of Shri Hansraj. Thus also,
allowing continuation of the impugned FIR which is patently based
on a conjectural allegation would amount to gross abuse of
process of law.
Thus, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby
allowed. The impugned FIR No.609/2014 registered at the Police
Station Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar and all consequential
proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioner
are hereby quashed.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.