HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2673 / 2015
izkFkhZ %
vafdr xxZ iq yfyr xxZ] mez 28 o”kZ] tkfr vxzoky] fuoklh edku uEcj 500
vjcu LVsV II fglkj ¼gfj;k.kk½A
cuke
vizkFkhZXk.k %
1- jktLFkku ljdkjA
2- [kq”kcq iRuh vafdr xxZ iqh jk/ks’;ke] mez djhc 25 o”kZ] tkfr vxzoky] fuoklh
pkpk.k ekSgYyk] uksgj rglhy uksgj ftyk guqekuxA
—- ifjoknh
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2902 / 2015
1. Lalit Kumar S/o Jai Gopal
2. Smt. Jaishri W/o Lalit Kumar
Both By caste Aggarwal, R/o H. No.500, Urban State Phse-II,
Hisar, Haryana
3. Smt. Ritu W/o Vikas Kumar
4. Vikas Kumar S/o Satish Kumar Gupta,
Both R/o 170, E-Block, Sirsa, Haryana.

—-Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan
2. Khushbu W/o Ankit Garg D/o Radheshyam, aged 25 years,
by caste Aggarwal, R/o Chachan Mohalla, Nohar, Tehsil
Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP.
Mr. Vineet Jain.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
(2 of 5)

Judgment
Date of Judgment: 25/05/2018

These two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been

preferred on behalf of the accused petitioners with a prayer for

quashing of the FIR No.378/2015 lodged by the respondent No.2

Smt. Khushbu at the Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh

for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioner Ankit Garg (Misc. Petition No.2673/2015) was

married to Smt. Khushbu on 20.06.2010. The matrimonial

relations between the parties fell out whereupon, two parallel

proceedings were instituted in the Family Court, Hanumangarh,

one being an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act filed by Smt. Khushbu and the other being an application

under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which came to be

submitted by the petitioner Ankit Garg. Whilst Khushbu’s

application was submitted on 17.05.2013, Ankit Garg filed the

divorce application on 28.05.2013. Khushbu’s statement was

recorded by the Family Court in connection with the divorce

proceedings on 30.07.2014. The FIR under challenge came to be

lodged by Smt. Khushbu at the Police Station Nohar on

02.08.2015 alleging that soon after the marriage, the accused

petitioners started harassing and humiliating her on account of

demand of dowry and that she was tortured in the matrimonial

home. She also alleged that her dowry articles, entrusted to the

accused, were not returned despite a specific demand being made
(3 of 5)

and thereby, the accused committed the offences under Sections

498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the

above FIR registered for the offences under Sections 498A and

406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act asserting that

entire crux of allegations as set out in the impugned FIR is false

and fabricated. Shri Bora, learned counsel representing the

petitioners drew the Court’s attention to the pleadings of the

corresponding cases lodged inter-se between the parties under the

provisions of Hindu Marriage Act before registration of the

impugned FIR and the sworn statement of Smt. Khushbu recorded

in those proceedings and urged that no allegation is made by Smt.

Khusbu in any of these proceedings regarding the petitioners

having harassed or humiliated her on account of demand of dowry.

Rather, she admitted in her cross-examination that nobody ever

demanded any dowry from her. He thus urged that the impugned

FIR is nothing but a means of wreaking vengeance and the same

should be quashed because it does not disclose the necessary

ingredients of any cognizable offence and craved dismissal of the

petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

representing the complainant opposed the submissions advanced

by the petitioners’ counsel.

Having appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned FIR

as well as the corresponding proceedings undertaken between the
(4 of 5)

parties in the Family Court, Hanumangarh under the provisions of

Section 9 and Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, this Court is

duly satisfied by the contentions of Shri Nishant Bora that allowing

prosecution of the petitioners Lalit Kumar, Smt. Jaishri, Smt. Ritu

and Vikas Kumar (Cr. Misc. Petition No.2902/2015) for any of the

offences mentioned in the FIR and against the petitioner Ankit

Garg (Cr. Misc. Petition No.2673/2015) for the offence under

under Section 498A and Section 4 of the Dowry, is absolutely

unjustified and rather amounts to a gross abuse of process of law.

In the pleadings of the application filed by Smt. Khusbhu under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in the reply to the divorce

petition filed by Shri Ankit Garg, there is no allegation that she

was ever harassed or humiliated by any of the accused persons on

account of demand of dowry. Rather, in her cross-examination

conducted on behalf of Ankit Garg on 30.07.2014, she candidly

conceded that no dowry was ever demanded from her. Manifestly,

the parties were living separately from 05.07.2011. Since it is a

categoric admission of Smt. Khushbu in her sworn statement

recorded in contemporary proceedings on 30.07.2014 that no

dowry was ever demanded from her, this very allegation levelled

by her in the belated FIR regarding the accused having subjected

her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry is unaceptable on

the face of the record. Had there been an iota of truth in this

allegation then, it was expected that Smt. Khusbu would mention

it in the pleadings and evidence recorded by the Family Court

which were instituted at an earlier point of time.
(5 of 5)

In this background, prosecution of Ankit alone is permissible

and that too for the offence under Section 406 IPC. Whether or

not such prosecution would be hit by the bar of limitation would

be for the concerned court to consider at the appropriate stage

but for the present, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed qua

Ankit to the extent of the offence under Section 406 IPC.

Resultantly, these petitions are allowed in the following

terms.

All further proceedings of FIR No.378/2015 registered at the

Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh are quashed qua the

petitioners Lalit Kumar, Smt. Jaishri, Smt. Ritu and Vikas Kumar

(Cr. Misc. Petition No.2902/2015).

Further, the proceedings of the impugned FIR are quashed

qua the petitioner Ankit Garg for the offence under Section 498A

IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Cr. Misc. Petition

No.2673/2015).

A copy of this order be placed in each file.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

tikam daiya/