SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ashok vs State & Ors on 6 April, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
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
Hisar (Haryana).
—-Petitioner
Versus
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
Ganganagar.
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.
—-Respondents
__
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
Judgment
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

motive.

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.

tikam daiya/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh