HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2673 / 2015
vafdr xxZ iq yfyr xxZ] mez 28 o”kZ] tkfr vxzoky] fuoklh edku uEcj 500
vjcu LVsV II fglkj ¼gfj;k.kk½A
1- jktLFkku ljdkjA
2- [kq”kcq iRuh vafdr xxZ iqh jk/ks’;ke] mez djhc 25 o”kZ] tkfr vxzoky] fuoklh
pkpk.k ekSgYyk] uksgj rglhy uksgj ftyk guqekuxA
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2902 / 2015
1. Lalit Kumar S/o Jai Gopal
2. Smt. Jaishri W/o Lalit Kumar
Both By caste Aggarwal, R/o H. No.500, Urban State Phse-II,
3. Smt. Ritu W/o Vikas Kumar
4. Vikas Kumar S/o Satish Kumar Gupta,
Both R/o 170, E-Block, Sirsa, Haryana.
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Khushbu W/o Ankit Garg D/o Radheshyam, aged 25 years,
by caste Aggarwal, R/o Chachan Mohalla, Nohar, Tehsil
Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP.
Mr. Vineet Jain.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
(2 of 5)
Date of Judgment: 25/05/2018
These two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been
preferred on behalf of the accused petitioners with a prayer for
quashing of the FIR No.378/2015 lodged by the respondent No.2
Smt. Khushbu at the Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The petitioner Ankit Garg (Misc. Petition No.2673/2015) was
married to Smt. Khushbu on 20.06.2010. The matrimonial
relations between the parties fell out whereupon, two parallel
proceedings were instituted in the Family Court, Hanumangarh,
one being an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act filed by Smt. Khushbu and the other being an application
submitted by the petitioner Ankit Garg. Whilst Khushbu’s
application was submitted on 17.05.2013, Ankit Garg filed the
divorce application on 28.05.2013. Khushbu’s statement was
recorded by the Family Court in connection with the divorce
proceedings on 30.07.2014. The FIR under challenge came to be
lodged by Smt. Khushbu at the Police Station Nohar on
02.08.2015 alleging that soon after the marriage, the accused
petitioners started harassing and humiliating her on account of
demand of dowry and that she was tortured in the matrimonial
home. She also alleged that her dowry articles, entrusted to the
accused, were not returned despite a specific demand being made
(3 of 5)
and thereby, the accused committed the offences under Sections
The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the
above FIR registered for the offences under Sections 498A and
entire crux of allegations as set out in the impugned FIR is false
and fabricated. Shri Bora, learned counsel representing the
petitioners drew the Court’s attention to the pleadings of the
corresponding cases lodged inter-se between the parties under the
provisions of Hindu Marriage Act before registration of the
impugned FIR and the sworn statement of Smt. Khushbu recorded
in those proceedings and urged that no allegation is made by Smt.
Khusbu in any of these proceedings regarding the petitioners
having harassed or humiliated her on account of demand of dowry.
Rather, she admitted in her cross-examination that nobody ever
demanded any dowry from her. He thus urged that the impugned
FIR is nothing but a means of wreaking vengeance and the same
should be quashed because it does not disclose the necessary
ingredients of any cognizable offence and craved dismissal of the
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
representing the complainant opposed the submissions advanced
by the petitioners’ counsel.
Having appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned FIR
as well as the corresponding proceedings undertaken between the
(4 of 5)
parties in the Family Court, Hanumangarh under the provisions of
duly satisfied by the contentions of Shri Nishant Bora that allowing
prosecution of the petitioners Lalit Kumar, Smt. Jaishri, Smt. Ritu
and Vikas Kumar (Cr. Misc. Petition No.2902/2015) for any of the
offences mentioned in the FIR and against the petitioner Ankit
Garg (Cr. Misc. Petition No.2673/2015) for the offence under
unjustified and rather amounts to a gross abuse of process of law.
In the pleadings of the application filed by Smt. Khusbhu under
petition filed by Shri Ankit Garg, there is no allegation that she
was ever harassed or humiliated by any of the accused persons on
account of demand of dowry. Rather, in her cross-examination
conducted on behalf of Ankit Garg on 30.07.2014, she candidly
conceded that no dowry was ever demanded from her. Manifestly,
the parties were living separately from 05.07.2011. Since it is a
categoric admission of Smt. Khushbu in her sworn statement
recorded in contemporary proceedings on 30.07.2014 that no
dowry was ever demanded from her, this very allegation levelled
by her in the belated FIR regarding the accused having subjected
her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry is unaceptable on
the face of the record. Had there been an iota of truth in this
allegation then, it was expected that Smt. Khusbu would mention
it in the pleadings and evidence recorded by the Family Court
which were instituted at an earlier point of time.
(5 of 5)
In this background, prosecution of Ankit alone is permissible
and that too for the offence under Section 406 IPC. Whether or
not such prosecution would be hit by the bar of limitation would
be for the concerned court to consider at the appropriate stage
but for the present, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed qua
Ankit to the extent of the offence under Section 406 IPC.
Resultantly, these petitions are allowed in the following
All further proceedings of FIR No.378/2015 registered at the
Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh are quashed qua the
petitioners Lalit Kumar, Smt. Jaishri, Smt. Ritu and Vikas Kumar
(Cr. Misc. Petition No.2902/2015).
Further, the proceedings of the impugned FIR are quashed
qua the petitioner Ankit Garg for the offence under Section 498A
IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Cr. Misc. Petition
A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.