HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1770 / 2017
Col Bhuwaneshwar Bareth, S/o Sh Narain Singh Bareth, Aged
About 61 Years, By Caste-Charan R/o 117, Kanishka Resorts, Pal
by Pass Road, Near DPS School, Jodhpur (Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor

2. Smt. Vandana Sauda W/o Sudarshan Bareth, D/o Shri Prahlad
Singh, R/o Care of Govardhan La Inani, 10, Surabhi Vihar, New
Keshav Vihar, Roopasagar Road, Udaipur (Raj.)

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Col. Bhuwneshwar Bareth petitioner present
in person.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.S.Panwar PP for the State.

Mr.Rahul Choudhary for Mr.Pradeep Shah
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
Reserved on 10/08/2017

Pronounced on 11/08/2017

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been preferred for quashing of charge-sheet dated

15.05.2014, order of cognizance dated 28.05.2014 and order

dated 17.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate No.2, Udaipur and order dated 08.03.2017 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur in Criminal

Revision No.37/2016 for the offences under Sections 498A and

406 IPC.

(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-1770/2017]

2. At the outset, the present in person referred to the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma Ors.

Vs. State of U.P. Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1265/2017

decided on 27.07.2017), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had

made serious observations regarding misuse of the provisions of

Section 498A IPC.

3. The petitioner present in person read the FIR as well as

the final report and submitted that no incident had occurred in

Udaipur, so as to come within the jurisdiction of Udaipur.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor took this Court through the

order dated 17.03.2016, in which it was categorically stated that

accused No.2 and 3 came to Udaipur and made a categorical

demand of dowry, and therefore, the jurisdiction of Udaipur was

clearly made out.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent also passed on to

this Court a part of the charge-sheet, which was a telephonic

conversation made between the complainant and the accused

persons, and admittedly, that conversation had occurred at the

time when the parties were in Udaipur, and on a bare look at the

conversation, which is part of the charge-sheet, the demand of

dowry is clearly made out.

6. After hearing the petitioner in person as well as learned

Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the

complainant, as also on perusal of the record of the case

alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the

opinion that in the constrained jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C. at the stage when the charge-sheet has already been filed,
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-1770/2017]

the question can be gone into only in a prima facie manner, and

prima facie, the learned courts below in the impugned orders have

narrated the part of the incident to have happened in Udaipur,

where the demand of dowry was raised.

7. The script of the telephonic conversation shown from

the charge-sheet also clearly is about a telephonic call made in

Udaipur and the accused persons being in Udaipur at the relevant

point of time, apparently the demand of dowry is made out.

8. However, without going into the merits of the case, on

a prima facie perusal of the documents, the impugned orders are

justified and well reasoned and this Court is thus, not inclined to

invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the

count of jurisdiction, which is prima facie made out.

9. The precedent law of Rajesh Sharma Ors. Vs.

State of U.P. Anr. (supra) alongwith other precedent laws

cited by the petitioner in person have no applicability to the facts

of the present case at this stage.

10. Consequently, the present misc. petition is dismissed.

The stay application also stands disposed of.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

Skant/-