HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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.)
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.)
For Petitioner(s) : Col. Bhuwneshwar Bareth petitioner present
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
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
(2 of 3)
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)
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.