HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 655 / 2016

1. Smt Asha Sharma D/o Hans Raj R/o H.N 18, Vishnath Nagar,
Sri Ganganagar.

2. Monica Sharma W/o Sh. Nathu Ram R/o H.N 18, Vishnath
Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.

2. Gurvinder Sharma S/o Baldev Kishan Sharma B/c Brahmin
R/o H.no. 451 Sector No. 12, Hanumangarh Junction Distt.
Hanumangarh.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pritam Solanki.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.O.P.Rathi, P.P., Mr.N.L.Joshi, Ms.Kirti
Joshi.

__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
Date of Pronouncement : 13/09/2017

By way of this revision, the petitioners herein have

approached this Court for challenging the order dated 10.5.2016

passed by the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities Act

Cases), Sriganganagar whereby, the learned trial court accepted

the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

and directed summoning of the present petitioners to stand trial

as additional accused with the charge-sheeted accused Bharat

Bhushan for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. and

issued bailable warrants against them.

Facts in brief are that the respondent No.2 Gurvinder

Sharma submitted a written report at the Police Station
(2 of 6)
[CRLR-655/2016]

Hanumangarh Junction on 15.6.2015 alleging inter-alia that his

sister Veerpal Kaur had been married to Bharat Bhushan Sharma

on 7.12.2014. He alleged that wholesome dowry was given but

just 5-6 days after the marriage of Veerpal, her husband Bharat

Bhushan, Nanad Asha Sharma and Jethani Monica started

harassing and humiliating her on account of demand of dowry. He

contacted the accused persons many times and requested them

not to harass the deceased but they did not mend their ways.

Veerpal Kaur was beaten on numerous occasions for meeting the

demand of a motorcycle. About 7-8 days before lodging of the

report, the first informant and his brother Ashwini Sharma went to

Veerpal Kaur’s matrimonial home and gave a sum of Rs.5000/- so

that the greed of the accused could be sated. Bharat Bhushan

took Rs.5000/- more from the first informant’s father but despite

that, harassment of his sister continued. A day before the

incident, Veerpal Kaur called her sister in law Shabnam W/o

Gurvinder and informed that her husband Bharat Bhushan, Nanad

Asha Sharma and Jethani Monica were torturing her on account of

demand of dowry and were taunting her to jump into the canal if

she could not meet their demands. On 15.6.2015, he received

information that his sister had ended her life by hanging herself.

On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No.125/2015 was registered

at the Police Station Hanumangarh Junction for the offences under

Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. and investigation commenced. The

Investigating Officer recorded statements of numerous witnesses

and came to the conclusion that the allegation of the complainant

regarding petitioners herein having meted out harassment and
(3 of 6)
[CRLR-655/2016]

humiliation to the deceased on account of the demand of dowry

was not substantiated. The principal accused Bharat Bhushan’s

parents had passed away before his marriage. His elder sister; the

present petitioner Asha was working as a Nurse Gr.I in the Govt.

Hospital, Ganganagar. She had been divorced by her husband and

was living alone at the house No.18 Vishnath Nagar,

Sriganganagar. Since she was all alone, Bharat Bhushan was

called by her to stay with her at Ganganagar but after living there

for a while, Bharat Bhushan returned to Hanumangarh. Later on,

Asha called her other brother Nathu Ram and his wife Monica to

live with her at Ganganagar. Bharat Bhushan was a quarrelsome

man and while living with the petitioner Asha, he continuously

quarreled with her and resultantly, the petitioner Asha turned him

out of her house and a public notice for severance of her with

Bharat Bhushan was also published in the newspaper. The entire

expenditure of marriage of Bharat Bhushan and Veerpal Kaur was

borne by Asha Sharma. Bharat Bhushan and his in laws were

trying to get the ancestral property partitioned upon which, Asha

Sharma relinquished her share in the property in favour of her two

brothers Bharat Bhushan and Nathu Ram on 6.4.2015. Gurvinder

Sharma was also a signatory to the relinquishment deed. After

this, Bharat Bhushan took up a separate rental residence owned

by Pawan Kumar at Ganganagar and started living there with

Veerpal Kaur. Right upto the date of the incident i.e. 15.6.2015,

Bharat Bhushan and Veerpal Kaur were living on their own in the

rented premises and had no contact whatsoever with Asha, Monica

or Nathu Ram. Bharat Bhushan was working as a Helper in the
(4 of 6)
[CRLR-655/2016]

RMRS (Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society) on contractual basis and

was unable to meet the household expenses and thus he used to

pressurise Veerpal Kaur to bring money from her maternals and

was also demanding a motorcycle. The first informant Gurvinder

Sharma had given a sum of Rs.5000/- to his sister about 7-8 days

before the incident so that she could meet the day to day

expenses. Despite that, Bharat Bhushan continued his cruel

behaviour with the deceased as a result whereof, she became fed

up with her life and committed suicide. With these conclusions,

the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet only against Bharat

Bhushan, leaving out the petitioners from the array of accused.

After recording of statements of two main prosecution witnesses

viz. Pawan Kumar and the complainant Gurvinder, an application

was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which came to be allowed in

the above terms and the petitioners were summoned to stand trial

as co-accused with Bharat Bhushan. Hence, this revision.

I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the

material available on record.

Suffice is to say that the allegations set out in the written

report filed by Gurvinder as against the present petitioners are

vague and uncertain. The Investigating Officer collected ample

evidence during investigation which conclusively establishes that

the deceased and her husband i.e. the principal accused Bharat

Bhushan had taken up a separate rental accommodation in the

premises of Pawan Kumar and were living there from 16.4.2015.

Thus apparently, there was no occasion for interaction of the
(5 of 6)
[CRLR-655/2016]

present petitioners with the deceased and her husband for the

past two months preceding the incident. Pawan Kumar, the

landlord upon being examined during trial has clearly stated that

Bharat Bhushan and Veerpal Kaur were living as his tenants. Even

the first informant Gurvinder Sharma made vague and general

allegations against the present petitioners whilst the specific

allegation of demand and harassment meted out to the deceased

is attributed to Bharat Bhushan. A sum of Rs.5000/- had been

given to him about 7-8 days before the incident. Bharat Bhushan

had taken another sum of Rs.5000/- from his father in law Baldeo

Krishna but so far as the petitioners are concerned, absolutely

vague and unconvincing allegations have been levelled against

them. The Investigating Officer conducted detailed investigation

before filing charge-sheet only against Bharat Bhushan finding

that he and Veerpal Kaur were living in abject poverty in the

rented premises because Bharat Bhushan was earning a pittance

of salary being engaged as a contractual worker and could not

make the ends meet. The petitioner Asha Sharma had even

denounced Bharat Bhushan way-back in the year 2008 by a paper

publication because of his ill behaviour. The Investigating Officer

collected the evidence to the effect that because of the poor

financial condition of Bharat Bhushan, it was decided amongst the

siblings that he shall be entitled to the entire ancestral property

and in furtherance thereof, the petitioner Smt.Asha relinquished

her share therein by executing a deed which is signed by none

other than the complainant Gurvinder. Thus, ex-facie, this Court is

of the firm opinion that there do not exist valid and sufficient
(6 of 6)
[CRLR-655/2016]

grounds on the record so as to justify summoning of the

petitioners as additional accused in the case to face trial with the

charge-sheeted accused Bharat Bhushan.

This Court had the occasion to examine an almost identical

controversy in the case of Malam Singh Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan Anr. reported in 2016(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 943 and

quashed the cognizance taken against the father in law of the

deceased against whom no specific allegations of demand and

harassment on account of demand of dowry were levelled by the

prosecution witnesses.

Resultantly, the revision deserves to be and is hereby

accepted. The impugned order dated 10.5.2016 passed by the

learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities Act Cases),

Sriganganagar whereby the petitioners were summoned as

additional accused to stand trial with Bharat Bhushan for the

offences under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. is hereby quashed

and set aside.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

/tarun goyal/