HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 266/2007

Jas Nath s/O Bhomnath, aged 58 years, R/o Near Shambhu
Bhawan, Fateh Sagar, Jodhpur

—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan

—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.R. Goswami
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Awasthi, P.P.

Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Adv
assisted by Mr. Tarun Dhaka

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

01/10/2018

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

498A IPC.

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 inlaws 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-266/2007]

After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the

petitioner for offence under Section 498A IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is

father-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 Sectino 498A IPC deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the

complainant submits that petitioner who is father-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

11.08.2006.

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 him 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.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

bjsh

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)