HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1423 / 2016
1. Gaurav Kumar S/o Shri Balkishan
2. Balkishan S/o Shri Jattu Ram
3. Krishna Devi W/o Shri Bal Kishan
All by caste Arora, resident of Gali No.13, Nai Aabadi, Abohar
Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka (Punjab)
4. Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Jattu Ram, by caste Arora, resident of
House No.B-4-795, Abohar District Fazilka (Punjab)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Sunayana W/o Gaurav Kumar D/o Shri Mohan Lal Arora,
resident of 9/44, Housing Board, Near District Jail, Hanumangarh
Junction, District Hanumangarh
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, P.P.
Mr. Vineet Jain
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
07/12/2017

By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the

petitioners have approached this court for challenging further

proceedings of the FIR No.101/2016 registered at Police Station

Mahila Thana, Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 498-

A, 406, 323, 376 and 377 IPC.

The petitioners have set out a specific case in the

petition that the respondent Sunayana, who is an Advocate, was

married to the petitioner No.1 Gaurav at Abohar, Punjab in the
(2 of 4)
[CRLMP-1423/2016]

year 2008. She was in relationship with a boy named Sachin

Sharma before her marriage and even thereafter she continued

the illicit relations. The petitioners have filed on record numerous

photographs of the complainant and the said Sachin Sharma in

intimate positions. Recordings of the conversation held inter se

between the complainant and the said Sachin Sharma have also

been filed on record, which clearly indicate that both were

indulging in a rampant extramarital affair. In the conversation

recorded on 23.12.2015, Sachin is heard instigating the

complainant to administer intoxicating tablets to the petitioner and

his family members by mixing the same in milk and thereafter

when the family members fell asleep by its effect, he proposed to

enter in the petitioners’ house so as to continue his illicit

relationship with the lady.

These facts were duly verified during investigation of

FIR No.18/2016 lodged by the petitioner Gaurav at Police Station

Abohar City, wherein after investigation, a charge-sheet has been

filed against the respondent Sunayana and Sachin for the offences

under Sections 328, 380, 384, 497 and 120-B of the IPC and

Section 66-E of the IT Act. It is stated that Sunayana and Sachin

are absconding and the court at Punjab has issued warrant of

arrest against them. It is also stated that the respondent

complainant has abandoned her two minor children in the

petitioners’ family and they are being taken care of by the

petitioner Gaurav as their natural guardian. While absconding

from the matrimonial home, she made off with her own jewelry

and so also the valuables owned by the petitioners.
(3 of 4)
[CRLMP-1423/2016]

As per the factual report of the present case submitted

for court’s perusal, the Investigating Officer has not found the

offences other than the one under Section 406 IPC proved against

any of the accused petitioners. Admittedly, the marriage of the

parties took place at Punjab and they stayed together in Punjab

and never came to Rajasthan. Thus, there is no reason so as to

satisfy the court as to why the investigation of the FIR can be

permitted to be conducted by Rajasthan Police.

Furthermore, in view of these glaring material facts, it

is manifest that the entire story as set up by the complainant is

false and fabricated. Otherwise also, the Investigating Officer has

not found most of the offences proved against the petitioners.

The fact regarding charge-sheet filed against the complainant in

the court at Punjab has been verified by the Investigating Officer

as per the factual report.

In this background, the conclusion drawn by the

Investigating Officer that the petitioners are responsible for the

offence under Section 406 IPC is totally unsustainable because the

complainant has been charge-sheeted for the offence under

Section 380 IPC in the case filed by the petitioners at Punjab,

wherein there is a categoric finding of police that Sunayana made

off with her dowry articles and other valuables owned by the

petitioners.

In this view of the matter, I am of the firm opinion that

allowing further proceedings of the impugned FIR to be continued

against the petitioners would amount to an absolutely gross abuse

of the process of law. Hence, the instant miscellaneous petition
(4 of 4)
[CRLMP-1423/2016]

deserves and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No.101/2016

registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Hanumangarh and all

proceedings sought to be taken therein against the petitioners are

hereby quashed.

The petitioners are at liberty to initiate proceedings

against the respondent No.2 complainant for launching a

manifestly false and fabricated prosecution against them.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

Pramod