HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2416 / 2013
1. Ashok Beniwal S/o Late Shri Om Prakash, aged 41 years, by
caste Jat,
2. Ajay Kumar S/o Om Prakash, by caste Jat,
3. Shanti Devi W/o Late Om Prakash, by caste Jat,
4. Saroj D/o Late Om Prakash, by caste Jat,
5. Kamla Devi W/o Krishan Godara D/o Late Om Prakash,
All residents of resident of Sector No.16-17, House No.730,
Hissar (Haryana).
6. Gyani Ram S/o Shri Keshu Ram Jiyani, by caste Jat, resident
of Darba Kalla, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana).
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan.
2. Smt. Rameshwari Devi W/o Shri Ashok Beniwal D/o Ghisa
Ram, by caste Jat, aged 41, 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. Ranjit Singh.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
Date of Judgment: 06/04/2018
The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the
petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR
No.267/2013 registered at the Police Station Gharsana, District Sri
(2 of 8)
Ganganagar and all consequential proceedings sought to be taken
thereunder against the petitioners for the offences under Sections
498A and 406 IPC.
Facts in brief are that the petitioner Ashok Beniwal was
married to the respondent No.2 Smt. Rameshwari Devi in the year
1997 at Sadul Shahar (Haryana). The respondent No.2 lodged the
impugned FIR against the petitioner at the Police Station Gharsana
on 03.07.2013 alleging inter alia that wholesome dowry was given
to the accused persons in the marriage. The complainant was also
gifted 25 tolas of gold by the father of Ashok in the marriage
which is her streedhan. No sooner, the complainant arrived at the
matrimonial home after the marriage, the accused started
taunting her owing to demand of dowry and also made comments
on her short stature. Ashok Kumar used to taunt the complainant
saying that he expected a woman with better attributes and that
she had not brought any significant dowry as well. Vicious
comments were made on the dowry articles given by the
complainant’s maternals in the marriage. In the year 2000, the
complainant was turned out with a threat that she should bring a
sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from her maternals for purchasing a plot in
Hisar or else, she would not be allowed back in the matrimonial
home. The complainant approached her parents and apprised
them about the demands being made the accused but they
expressed inability to satisfy the same. The complainant then
approached her maternal uncle Shrichand and told him about the
torture being inflicted upon her on which, Shrichand gave her
(3 of 8)
some money which she handed over the accused with which, the
accused purchased a plot in Sector 16-17 in Haryana. For a few
days after this demand had been satisfied, the accused did not
misbehave with the complainant but the foul activities of the
accused resumed soon thereafter. Taunts and insinuations were
hurled regarding the complainant’s short stature, the clothes and
other articles given by the complainant’s maternals in the
marriage and uncalled for and trivial mistakes were pointed out in
the household chores being carried out by the complainant and
she was harassed on this count. These events became a routine
part of her life. Ashok used to assault her frequently. The
complainant bore a child from Ashok. She was threatened that
Ashok had secured a good job and that she would be turned out of
the house and Ashok would remarry. The complainant continued
to bear the cruel behaviour of the accused looking to the future of
her child. The complainant somehow procured a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- from her mother and gave it to the accused.
However, the accused continued to press her with with more
demands imputing that her brother was having a flourishing
business and that more money should be brought from him. On
03.04.2013, the complainant was turned out of the house only in
her clothes and she was asked to bring 7-8 lac rupees cash from
her brother for repaying some bank loan. The complainant’s
relatives were unable to satisfy the illegal greed of the accused
upon which the complainant filed an application in the court of the
Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gharsana under the provisions of
(4 of 8)
the Domestic Violence Act. The parties were called in the court on
05.06.2013 to explore the possibility of a settlement but the
accused did not respond to the pleas of the complainant and
persisted with their demands and threatened that the accused
Ashok would remarry. The complainant demanded her Streedhan
back from the accused but they bluntly refused. The Judicial
Magistrate (First Class), Gharsana awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/-
per month as well as the residential rights to the complainant in
the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. The
complainant went to reside in shared household i.e. House No.730
in Sector 16-17, Hisar but found it locked. Thereupon, the
complainant went to her sister Rukmani’s house who resides
nearby. On inquiry, she was informed that the accused had
illegally transferred the said house. The brother of the complainant
again tried to settle her back in matrimony by convening meeting
at Gharsana on 28.06.2013 but the accused bluntly refused to
accept the proposal of settlement. Thereupon, the impugned FIR
came to be lodged by the complainant at the Police Station
Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagr.
The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report
of the I.O. as per which, thorough investigation was conducted in
the matter and the offences have been found proved only against
the petitioner Ashok Beniwal, being the husband of the
complainant. During investigation, the investigating officer has
concluded that a Maruti Car bearing No.RJ-13-C-4171, which was
allegedly given to the accused by way of dowry, continues to be
(5 of 8)
registered in the name of Hansraj (the brother of the first
informant).
Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Kharlia representing the petitioners
referred to the application moved by the respondent complainant
under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and urged that
there is no allegation whatsoever therein regarding any act of
cruelty or harassment meted out to the complainant by any of the
accused petitioners other than Ashok. He contended that the
application under the Domestic Violence Act which was moved well
before lodging the impugned FIR, contains no aspersion that the
accused petitioners ever harassed or humiliated Rameshwari on
account of demand of dowry. He further urged that after the
marriage which took place in Sadul Shahar, Haryana, the spouses
never resided together at any place in Rajasthan so as to justify
registration of the FIR at the Police Station Gharsana. In support
of his contentions, Shri Kharlia relied upon a Supreme Court
decision in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith Ors. vs. Inspector
of Police, Chennai Anr., reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286 and
urged that allowing continuance of investigation of the impugned
FIR at the Police Staton Gharsana is totally unjustified and hence,
the same should be quashed.
Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
representing the complainant Shri Ranjeet Singh vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners’ counsel.
However, they too are not in a position to dispute the fact that the
marriage of the complainant with Ashok was solemnised at Sadul
(6 of 8)
Shahar and no point of time, did the spouses reside together at
Gharsana.
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.
Investigation changed numerous hands. In the earlier
rounds, the I.O. concerned concluded that all the accused were
responsible for the offences alleged. However, in the final round of
investigation, the following affirmative findings came to be
noticed:-
“r¶rh”k iqfyl o c;kukr xokgku ls ik;k x;k fd ifjoknh;k jkes”ojh
nsoh dh “kknh fnukad 18-1-1997 dks vkjksih v”kksd csuhoky ds lkFk gqbZ
FkhA “kknh ds ckn ls ifjoknh;k vius ifr ds lkFk fuokl djrh Fkh o
v”kksd csuhoky gfj;k.kk d`f”k fo”ofo esa nwj laosnu mi;ksx dsUnz esas
lhfu;j lkbZUVhfQd vlhLVsaV ds in ij ,oa ckn esa Hkwxksy o O;k[;krk
dh uksdjh yxus ds dkj.k fglkj esa gh fdjk;s dk edku ysdj jgk
Fkk ,oa ifjoknh;k vkjksih ds lkFk gh fglkj esa fuokljr jgh Fkh blh
Øe esa vkjksih v”kksd csuhoky ,oa mldh iRuh Jhefr jkes”ojh edku ua-
7 ,pVh,e dkyksuh fglkj esa “kknh ds ckn ls o”kZ 2000 rd ,oa 2000 ls
2004 rd edku ua- 37 lSDVj ua- 15 , fglkj esa ,oa o”kZ 2005 ls
flrEcj 2008 rd edku ua- 217 lSDVj ua- 15 , fglkj esa fdjk;s ds
edku esa jgus ,oa o”kZ 2008 flrEcj ls 3-4-13 rd edku ua- 730 lSDVj
ua- 16]17 fglkj esa fuokljr jguk ik;k x;k gSA”
…….
“eqdnek gktk esa Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; ftyk Jhxaxkuxj
ls pkyku vkns”k izkIr dj urhtk pkykuh tfj;s pktZ”khV ua- 492
fnukad 19-10-14 vUrxZr /kkjk 498,] 406 Hkknl fo:) eqfYte v”kksd
cSuhoky iq vkseizdk”k tkfr tkV mez 46 lky fuoklh pqyhckxfM;ku
iqfyl Fkkuk vkneiqj ftyk fglkj gfj;k.kk gky vkneiqj Hkknjk jksM+
vkneiqj gfj;k.kk esa drk fd;k tk pqdk gSA”
The most significant aspect noticeable from the above
findings is that the alleged offending acts with the complainant
took place at Hisar where she resided after her marriage. Though
(7 of 8)
it is true that in the application filed by Smt. Rameshwari against
the petitioner Ashok Beniwal in the court of the Judicial Magistrate
Gharsana, there is no specific allegation regarding demand of
dowry against the petitioners other than Ashok but this Court,
cannot loose sight of the fact that the application was in a
proforma where the applicant has to merely select the options
provided therein. On going through the proforma filled by the
applicant Rameshwari, it is apparent that she has indeed selected
the option regarding demand of dowry in the application form.
Thus, no significance can be attached to the alleged omissions in
the application. However, another fact noticeable from the said
application is that all the acts of domestic violence admittedly took
place with Smt. Rameshwari Devi at Hisar.
Thus manifestly, the allegation levelled by the complainant
that accused came to Gharsana and there also, they repeated and
persisted with their demands of dowry is a patent exaggeration
created in order to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of Police
Station Gharsana and nothing else. The situation of the case at
hand is squarely covered by the Supreme Court decision in the
case of Y. Abraham Ajit (supra) and hence, this Court feels that
allowing continuance of investigation of the FIR at the Police
Station Gharsana is absolutely unjustified because no offence was
admittedly committed within its jurisdiction.
In view of these facts, this Court is of the firm opinion that
allowing the proceedings of the FIR to be continued at the Police
Station Gharsana is not justified because the Court where the
(8 of 8)
report would be submitted would not be seized of the jurisdiction
to try the matter. Furthermore, since, from the investigation
conducted thus far, the offences have only been found proved
against the petitioner Ashok, no useful purpose would be served
by keeping the sword hanging on the remaining accused.
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant
misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned
FIR No.267/2013 registered at the Police Station Gharsana,
District Sri Ganganagar and the complete record thereof shall be
forthwith transmitted to the S.P. Hisar. Further proceedings of the
impugned FIR shall be continued only against the petitioner Ashok
Beniwal. The S.P. Hisar shall assign further investigation of the
matter to an appropriate officer of the police station having
jurisdiction to investigate the same who shall investigate the FIR
and file conclusion before the court concerned expeditiously.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
tikam daiya/