HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
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.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, By Ratanada Police, Ratanada, Jodhpur
(Raj)

2. Monika Kothari, W/o Anand Kothari, Resident of 1A 2nd B Road,
Agarwal Market Ke Phiche, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)
—-Respondents
__
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
07/02/2018

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)
[ CRLMP-1538/2017]

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)
[ CRLMP-1538/2017]

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

complainant.

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)
[ CRLMP-1538/2017]

S.Phophaliya/-9