HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 527 / 2015

1. Kuldeepak S/o Ramesh Sharma, by caste Sharma, resident
of Falna, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.

2. Smt. Meena Devi W/o Gajendra, by caste Sharma, resident
of Mahadevji Ki Gali, Falna Station, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.

3. Smt. Indira Devi W/o Ramesh Kumar, by caste Sharma,
resident of Mahadevji Ki Gali, Falna Station, Tehsil Bali,
District Pali

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Mamta Sharma D/o Shri Madan Lal, by caste Brahmin,
resident of Baldev Colony, Sumerpur, District Pali.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devesh Bohra.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP.

Mr. T.C. Sharma.

__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
Date of Judgment: 02 /07/2018

By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the

accused petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing

of the proceedings of the Criminal Original Case No.17/2015

arising from FIR No.458/2010 registered at the Police Station

Sumerpur, District Pali pending against them in the court of

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, District Pali for the

offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

Facts in brief are that the respondent No.2 complainant

submitted a written report to the SHO, Sumerpur alleging inter
(2 of 6)
[CRLMP-527/2015]

alia that she was married to the petitioner No.1 Kuldeepak on

19.02.2009 as per the Hindu rites and customs. It was further

alleged that at the time of marriage, her father gave wholesome

dowry viz. cash, ornaments and other household articles to the

complainant. The complainant went to live at her matrimonial

home at Falna. However, soon after the marriage, her husband

and other matrimonial relatives started harassing the complainant

on account of dowry and demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in

cash and a motorcycle for the petitioner Kuldeepak. The

complainant expressed that her father was not financially sound

enough to accede to these demands on which, just about 7-8 days

of the marriage, Kuldeepak (husband) slapped the complainant

whilst her mother-in-law and her Jethani Meena Sharma, pulled

her hair. The complainant somehow tolerated the cruel acts of the

accused. About a month of the marriage, she went to Ahore and

rejoined her duty as a Nurse at the Bishnoi Nursing Home where,

she was serving from before her marriage. Her father-in-law,

grand mother-in-law and brother-in-law threatened her that she

must leave the service or else, she would be turned out of the

matrimonial home. On being so compelled, the complainant had

no choice but to leave her job and started living at the

matrimonial home. However, her in-laws persisted with their cruel

behaviour and continued to demand a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and a

motorcycle and pressurised the complainant to bring the same

from her father. The husband Kuldeepak and Jethani Meena

Sharma threatened that she would be killed by burning after

pouring kerosene upon her. When the cruelties crossed all limits
(3 of 6)
[CRLMP-527/2015]

and the complainant could not tolerate the torture any further, she

called her father who expressed his inability to meet the unjust

demands of the accused on which, the complainant was expelled

from the matrimonial home on 23.01.2010. Since then, she was

residing at Sumerpur. The community members tried to intervene

and talk sense into the accused persons but they did not relent

from the demands. On the basis of this report, the above

mentioned FIR came to be registered and investigation was

commenced. A charge-sheet was filed in the court concerned only

against the petitioner Kuldeepak for the offences under Sections

498A and 406 IPC. However, on an application being moved by the

respondent No.2 under Section 190 Cr.P.C., process was also

issued against the petitioners No.2 and 3 being the mother in law

and sister in law of the complainant. The petitioners challenged

the order taking cognizance through separate revisions filed

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur on the

ground of territorial jurisdiction. The revision petitions were

allowed by a common order dated 10.07.2012 and the order

taking cognizance was set aside. On an application moved by the

petitioner No.1, the learned ACJM, Sumerpur directed return of

the charge-sheet to the Additional Public Prosecutor for the

submission thereof in the competent court having jurisdiction.

Thereafter, a fresh charge-sheet was filed in the court of the

ACJM, Bali against the petitioner No.1 only. However, the ACJM,

Bali accepted the application filed by the respondent No.2 under

Section 190 Cr.P.C. and issued process against the petitioners

No.2 and 3 vide order dated 07.01.2015. It may be noted here
(4 of 6)
[CRLMP-527/2015]

that even before these proceedings were being contemplated by

the respondent NO.2, the petitioner No.1 had filed an application

for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(A) against her in

the court of Additional District Judge, Bali on 03.11.2010. Notice

of the said divorce petition was served on the respondent

whereafter, the FIR in question came to be lodged. The application

for divorce submitted by the petitioner No.1 was transferred from

the court of the Additional District Judge, Bali to the Family Court,

Pali on 25.09.2013. Initially, the divorce petition was dismissed for

non-prosecution but thereafter, the same was restored and finally,

the parties moved an application under Section 13B of the Hindu

Marriage Act and their marriage was dissolved vide judgment cum

decree dated 20.06.2014.

In view of these significant developments, the petitioners

have approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal

proceedings on the ground that the allegations of cruelty owing to

demand of dowry stand totally diluted and have been virtually

nullified in view of the pleadings of the application filed by the

parties in the court of the Family Court, Pali under Section 13B of

the Hindu Marriage Act and so also, their evidence recorded during

these proceedings.

Shri Devesh Bohra, learned counsel representing the

petitioners has presented on record, all these proceedings and

drew the Court’s attention to the affidavit and statement of Ms.

Mamta recorded by the Family Court on 20.06.2014. Neither in

the affidavit nor in the statement, did Ms. Mamta level any

allegation regarding she having been treated with cruelty in the
(5 of 6)
[CRLMP-527/2015]

matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry. She further

admitted that there was no possibility of the matrimonial

relationship being restored or revived. She also admitted that she

would not demand any maintenance from the petitioner Kuldeep.

Shri Bohra urged that as the matrimonial relationship between the

petitioner Kuldeep and the respondent No.2 has been terminated

by mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served by keeping

these virtually futile criminal proceedings pending.

Per contra, learned counsel Shri T.C. Sharma representing

the complainant contended that complainant’s streedhan articles

are still retained by the accused and as such, this Court should not

interfere in the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court

and craved dismissal of the misc. petition.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments

advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on

record.

Significantly enough, neither in the affidavit nor in her sworn

statement recorded by the Family Court, did Ms. Mamta, the

respondent complainant herein, level any allegation of cruelty or

demand of dowry against any of the petitioners. All that she

stated in her sworn statement was that a matrimonial dispute

arose between her and Kuldeepak owing to conceptual differences.

She did not level even a semblance of allegation that she had ever

been harassed or humiliated at her matrimonial home on account

of demand of dowry. Furthermore, no allegation was made by her

that any of her streedhan articles were illegally retained by the

accused. This statement was recorded much after lodging of the
(6 of 6)
[CRLMP-527/2015]

criminal case. Even in the statement of Ms. Mamta recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation of the FIR referred to

supra, she did not level any allegation whatsoever that she asked

the accused to return her streedhan articles and that the accused

refused to do so.

In this background, manifestly ingredients of the offences

alleged are not made out against the accused from the relevant

record including the proceedings of the Family Court which form

an integral part of the proceedings required to be considered for

the just decision of the instant case. Hence, the criminal

proceedings pending against the accused deserve to be quashed.

In this background, the instant misc. petition deserves to be

and is hereby allowed. All further proceedings of the Criminal

Original Case No.17/2015 pending against the petitioners in the

court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, District Pali

arising from FIR No.458/2010 registered at the Police Station

Sumerpur, District Pali are hereby quashed as amounting to a

gross abuse of process of law.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

tikam daiya/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)