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)
