SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ashok & Ors vs State & Anr on 6 April, 2018

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).


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.

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.

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


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


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


“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.


tikam daiya/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation