HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2888/2016
Mukut Bihari Gupta And Ors
—-Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Anr
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP
Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Order
07/08/2018
Present petition has been preferred under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.100/2016 dated
07.06.2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana(South),
Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323,
and 354 I.P.C.
On 08.06.2009 respondent No.2 complainant as per
Hindu Customs Rites was married with petitioner No.1 Mukut
Bihari Gupta. Smt. Sunita complainant respondent No.2 has
alleged in the FIR that during subsistence of marriage, she was
subjected to physical and mentally cruelty on account of demand
of dowry. She further alleged that petitioner No.6 made an
attempt to outrage her modesty.
I have heard ld. counsel appearing for the petitioners,
ld. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and ld. counsel
appearing for the complainant.
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-2888/2016]
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that during
investigation offence under Section 354 IPC against petitioner
No.6 has been omitted, as allegation regarding an attempt to
outrage modesty by petitioner No.6 was not found truthful.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and going through the contents of the impugned F.I.R., it is
apparent that specific allegations of demand of dowry and
harassment have been levelled against the petitioners Nos.1 to 3.
Consequently, the present petition is dismissed, qua petitioner
No.1 Mukut Bihari Gupta husband, petitioner No.2 Hanuman Sahai
Gupta father in law and petitioner No.3 Smt. Kanta mother in law.
Petitioner No.4 Giriraj Prasad is a elder brother of the
husband of the complainant(Jeth), petitioner No.5 Smt. Anita is a
sister of husband of the complainant(Nanad) and petitioner No.6 is
son of the uncle of the husband of the complainant(Chacha’s son).
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
relied upon the case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of
Jharkhand and Another, reported in A.I.R. 2010 Supreme
Court 3363 to contend that provisions pertaining to matrimonial
offences are being misused and complainant by widening the net
has involved all family members, even son of uncle has not been
spared and allegations to invoke Section 354 IPC have been found
not truthful by the Investigating Agency.
From perusal of impugned F.I.R. it is apparent that
omnibus, general and vague allegations have been levelled against
the petitioners Nos.4 to 6 regarding demand of dowry and
infliction of mental and physical cruelty.
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-2888/2016]
Taking into account the nature of allegations,
relationship of petitioners Nos.4 to 6 with complainant/respondent
No.2 and observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of
Preeti Gupta (supra), the present petition is accepted, qua
petitioners Nos.4 to 6 and the impugned F.I.R., qua them is
quashed.
Furthermore, taking into consideration the age and
relationship of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, their personal appearance
before the trial Court is exempted, subject to following
conditions :-
“A. That the petitioner Nos.2 and3 shall file an undertaking that
they shall appear before the ld. trial Court at the time of framing
of the charges, recording of the statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and at the time of delivery of the judgment.
B. That the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall further state in the
undertaking that the evidence of the witnesses recorded in their
absence but in the presence of their Counsel shall be binding upon
them.
C. That in the undertaking, so filed they shall state that they shall
appear before the ld. Court below as and when called upon to do
so.
D. That the upon appearance of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the
trial Court shall accept personal bail bonds and bonds to be
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-2888/2016]
submitted by the sureties of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and same
shall enure during the pendency of the trial.”
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
Heena/106
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)