SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mukut Bihari Gupta And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 7 August, 2018

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)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation