HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 309/2019
Bhanwari Devi W/o Jasnath, Aged About 60 Years, B/c Swami,
R/o Opposite Shambhu Bhawan, Fateh Sagar Jodhpur.
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Khushbu W/o Ganpat Bharti, D/o Bhikhnath, R/o Village
Vadada, Opposite Bus Stand, Tehsil and District Sirohi.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nagraj Goswami
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order
Instant misc petition has been filed by the petitioner against
the order dated 11.08.2006 passed by Chief Judicial magistrate,
Sirohi in Criminal Case No. 225/2006 whereby, learned trial court
took cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section
Brief facts of the case are that complainant Smt. Khusbhoo
filed a written report before the police station, Sirohi alleging
therein that she was married to Dinesh Nath and started living in
her in-laws house. However, after some time, her husband died
and after death of her husband, the petitioner and other family
members of complainant’s husband refused to return the dowry
and gold ornaments. On this report, an FIR for offence under
Section 498A and 406 IPC was registered against the petitioner.
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-309/2019]
After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the
petitioner for offence under Section 498A IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
mother-in-law of the complainant and no specific allegation has
been levelled by the complainant against the petitioner in the FIR
so also in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, therefore, the
order of the Court below taking cognizance against the petitioner
for offence under Section 498A IPC deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the
complainant submits that petitioner who is mother-in-law of the
complainant also harassed the complainant and at this stage of
taking cognizance, no interference is called for in the order dated
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the
statement of complainant Khushboo including the statement
recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. From the
statements on record, it is evident that no specific allegation has
been levelled by the complainant against the petitioner demanding
dowry, therefore continuation of proceedings against her is
manifestly illegal. Accordingly, this misc. petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 11.08.2006 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal Case No. 225/2006 taking
cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 498A
IPC is hereby quashed and set aside.
Stay application decided accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)