HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1538 / 2017
Anand Kothari, S/o Rajendra Prashad Kothari, Resident of C – 803,
ETA Star Garden Apartments, Binny Mill Road, Magadi Road,
Bangalore 560 024.
1. State of Rajasthan, By Ratanada Police, Ratanada, Jodhpur
2. Monika Kothari, W/o Anand Kothari, Resident of 1A 2nd B Road,
Agarwal Market Ke Phiche, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ranjeet Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajesh Bhati, PP Dr.S.S. Jodha.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
1. The petitioner has moved this misc. petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. for fair investigation in FIR No.350/2016 dated
17.10.2016 lodged at Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur Mahanagar
under Sections 406 and 497 IPC.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the
complainant initially filed a complaint to the police on 3.7.2016 at
Bangalore. Thereafter, he lodged a detailed FIR on 4.7.2016
alleging illegal demand and beating. In the case filed on 4.7.2016,
the police has submitted charge-sheet at Bangalore for the
offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC and under Dowry
Prohibition Act. It is also contended that the complainant took
away her articles on 18.7.2016 and 21.7.2016 in presence of her
(2 of 4)
father. In the list she did not make a mention about the dowry
articles which were retained by the petitioner. It is also contended
that thereafter after taking ample time, present FIR has been
lodged on 17.10.2016 levelling allegations that the dowry articles
have not been returned. It is also contended that it was a second
marriage of both the parties and the complainant is only keen in
receiving compensation and has lodged this F.I.R. to put pressure
on the petitioner. It is contended that in view of the fact that the
complainant did not make any note of the dowry articles being
with the petitioner, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed. It is also
contended that in the present F.I.R., there is no mention of any
date on which the demand for return of dowry articles was made.
3. Learned P.P. and the counsel for the complainant have
opposed the revision petition.
4. It is contended by the counsel for the State that the police
after due investigation has come to the conclusion that the offence
under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out.
5. Counsel for the complainant has contended that as the
petitioner gave beating and abused the complainant, she was
forced to run to the police and file a complaint on 3.7.2016.
Thereafter on the next day, she filed a detailed F.I.R. with regard
to illegal demand and beating. The police has submitted charge-
sheet in the case which goes to show that there was demand of
dowry and complainant was assaulted. With regard to lodging of
the present F.I.R. at Jodhpur, it is contended by the counsel for
the complainant that the dowry articles were with mother-in-law
(3 of 4)
and sister-in-law of the complainant and was at Jodhpur and when
the demand was raised at Jodhpur and the same was not
returned, the present F.I.R. has been lodged. It is also contended
that the specific date has been mentioned in the F.I.R. of
demanding the money by a telephonic conversation. With regard
to the jewellery articles, it is contended that in a joint reply given
to the application under Domestic Violence Act, the petitioner has
denied the list submitted by the complainant but has given a
separate list mentioning the jewellery articles. However, in the
reply, it is mentioned that these jewellery articles are with the
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. Since the police after due investigation has arrived at a
conclusion that the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out
and also considering the fact that the complainant was thrown out
of the house on 3.7.2016 and thereafter only her wearing apparels
were returned to her. There being specific allegation in the FIR
that the jewellery articles with mother-in-law and sister-in-law of
the complainant and there is no averment whatsoever that the
same have been returned after the complainant left the house at
Bangalore. There being specific allegation in the F.I.R. that the
cash and articles were also given to the petitioner, no ground is
made out for quashing the F.I.R.
8. The misc. petition is accordingly dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.
(4 of 4)