SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pradeep Kumar Meena And Ors vs State Of Raj And Anr on 13 March, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 593/2018

1. Pradeep Kumar Meena S/o Shri Shyamveer Meena B/c
Meena, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Post Barauli,
Police Station Sarmathura, Tehsil Basedi, Distt. Dholpur
(Raj.)
2. Shyamveer S/o Shri Ram Charan B/c Meena, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Village Post Barauli, Police Station
Sarmathura, Tehsil Basedi, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.)
3. Bunty S/o Shyamveer B/c Meena, Aged About 18 Years,
R/o Village Post Barauli, Police Station Sarmathura, Tehsil
Basedi, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.)
4. Ramcharan S/o Ransingh B/c Meena, Aged About 80
Years, R/o Village Post Barauli, Police Station Sarmathura,
Tehsil Basedi, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.)
5. Beena D/o Shri Radheyshyam B/c Meena, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Village Post Barauli, Police Station Sarmathura,
Tehsil Basedi, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.)
6. Radheyshyam S/o Ramcharan B/c Meena, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Post Barauli, Police Station Sarmathura,
Tehsil Basedi, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.)
7. Mahesh S/o Shri Mishri Lal B/c Meena, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village Gabdi, Post Mahaveerji, Tehsil Hindaun,
Distt. Karauli (Raj.)
8. Reena Meena D/o Radheyshyam W/o Shri Mahesh B/c
Meena, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Gabdi, Post
Mahaveerji, Tehsil Hindaun, Distt. Karauli (Raj.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
2. Smt. Rajeshwari W/o Shri Kedar B/c Brahmin, Aged About
50 Years, R/o Village Sunkai, Police Station Sarmathura,
Distt. Dholpur (Raj.)
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Jatav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-593/2018]

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Order

13/03/2018

The present petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of FIR No. 318/2017 registered at Police

Station Sarmathura, Dholpur for the offences under Sections 363

and 366A IPC.

A co-ordinate Bench on 19.2.2018 had passed the

following order:-

“vf/koDrk ;kph dks lquk x;k o ikoyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA
fo}ku~ vf/koDrk ;kphx.k us fuosnu fd;k gS fd ;kph la[;k1 o ifjoknh dh iqh
jk/kkdqekjh ‘kekZ nksuksa o;Ld gS RkFkk nksuksa us LosPNk ls jk/kk dqekjh ds ekrkfirk dh bPNk ds fcuk
fnukad 27-12-2017 dks fookg dj fy;k] ftldk jftLVsª’ku Hkh eSfjt jftLVªs’ku vkWfQlj
xkft;kckn] ;w-ih- esa fnukad 27-12-2017 dks djok fy;k gSA
pwafd mDr fookg vpk;h la[;k2 ifjokfn;k dh bPNk o lgefr ds fcuk fd;k x;k Fkk]
ftlls v;kph la[;k2 ifjokfn;k us ;kphx.k ds fo:) vkykSP; ,Q vkbZ vkj la[;[email protected]
iqfyl FkkukljeFkiqjk ftyk /kkSyiqj vUrxZr /kkjk363] 366A Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa ntZ
djok;h gS] ftlesa ;kphx.k dks fxjIrkjh dk vans’kk gSA
rnuqlkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa yxk;s x;s vkjksi feF;k gSA vfHk;ksDh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ
esa of.kZr dksbZ tsojkr o :i;s ysdj ugha vk;h gSA vr% ;kphx.k ds fo:) ntZ mDr izFke lwpuk
fjiksVZ dks fujLr fd;k tkosA
lqudj fopkj fd;k x;kA
v;kphx.k dks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tkosA
v;kph la[;k1 dh vksj ls mifLFkr fo+}ku yksd vfHk;kstd Jh ohjsUnz xksnkjk us uksfVl
izkIr fd;kA
v;kph la[;k2 ds uke bl ;kfpdk dk uksfVl fnukad 22-03-2018 ;k mlls iwoZ dh
rkehy gsrq tkjh fd;k tkosA uksfVl] rkehy gsrq iqfyl vf/k{kd] /kkSyiqj ds ekQZr fHktok;k tkosA
ikoyh fnukad 22-03-2018 dks iqu% U;k;ky; ds le{k lwphc) dh tkosaA rc rd
;kphx.k ds fo:) dksbZ coercive steps ugha fy;k tkosA
;kphx.k dks funsZ’k fn;k tkrk gS fd os vkt ls ,d lIrkg ds Hkhrj vfHk;ksDh dks
vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds le{k is’k djsaxs vkSj vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh vfHk;ksDh ds dFku ys[kc) djus ds
fy, o mlds /kkjk164 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr lEcfU/kr eftLVsªV ds le{k dFku ys[kc)
djokus ds fy, Lora jgsaxsA
;fn ,d lIrkg esa vfHk;ksDh dks vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds le{k is’k ugha fd;k tkrk gS]
rks ;g vUrfje vkns’k Lor% fujLr lek tkosxkA”

The statement of the victim Radha Kumari Sharma

could not be recorded in pursuance of above order in the court of

concerned Magistrate at Dholpur. Consequently, on the prayer

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court on

7.3.2018 passed the following order:-

“The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of
this Court to the order dated 19.2.2018 passed by the co-
ordinate Bench. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 within
one week time as stipulated in the order dated 19.2.2018 could
not be recorded and there is imminent threat to the life and
liberty to the prosecutrix, in case she caused appearance in the
court at Dholpur.

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-593/2018]

In view of the statement made above, it is ordered that
on identification to be made by the counsel for the petitioner,
statement of Radha Kumari Sharma shall be recorded by Dy.
Registrar (Judicial).

To await statement of Radha Kumari Sharma, list this
case on 13.3.2018.”

In pursuance of the said order, Dy. Registrar (Judicial)

of this Court on identification by Mr. Amitabh Jatav, counsel for the

petitioner, has recorded the statement of Radha Kumari Sharma.

The said statement reads as under:-

jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj
,lŒchŒfØfeuy felŒ ihfV’ku uEcj [email protected]
iznhi dqekj ehuk o vU; cuke ljdkj o vU;

fnukad [email protected]@2018
eSa jk/kk dqekjh] iqh Jh dsnkj ‘kekZ] iRuh Jh iznhi dqekj ehuk] vk;q yxHkx 19 Ok”kZ] tkfr
czkg~Ek.k] fuoklhxzke lqudbZ rglhy clsMh ftyk /kkSyiqjA
‘kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrh gwW fd esjh tUefrFkh 10-08-1999 gSA eS 8oha rd v/;;u fd;k gSA
iznhi dqekj ehuk esjk ifr gS ftlls eSaus viuh ethZ ls fnukad 27-12-2017 dks ‘kknh dj yh FkhA
rc ls eS mlh ds lkFk jg jgh gwWA esjh ‘kknh ls esjs ekrkfirk [kq’k ugha FksA blds dkj.k esjs
llqjky okyks ds fo:) iqfyl Fkkuk ljeFkiqjk esa wBk eqdnek ntZ djk;k gSA ‘;keohj th esjs
llqj gS] jkepj.k th eSjs nknk llqj gSA eSus viuh ethZ ls /kj NksM+dj iznhi ls ‘kknh dh gSA ?kj
NksM+rs oDr eSa /kj ls [kkyh gkFk x;h FkhA esjs llqjky okys eqs vPNh rjg j[krs gS vkSj eSa vius
llqjky esa [kq’k gwWA eSa vius ifr ds lkFk jguk pkgrh gwWA eqs vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA

uksV% xokg dk c;ku esjs funsZ’ku esa mlds dgs vuqlkj Vad.kdrkZ }kjk dEi;wVj ij Vafdr fd;k
x;k] ftls xokg dks i+dj lquk;k o lek;k x;k rks mlus mDr dFkuksa dks lqu o le dj lgh
gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA

The respondent no.2 Smt. Rajeshwari is mother of

Radha Kumari Sharma.

The learned Public Prosecutor has not denied that

Radha Kumari Sharma has attained the age of majority.

Thus, in view of the joint statement made by the

learned counsel for the parties, that Radha Kumari Sharma is

above 18 years of age, this Court is of the view that as per

Constitutional guarantee, she is entitled to live wherever she

intends and since Radha Kumari Sharma has performed marriage

with the petitioner, according to her own free will and accord, the

impugned FIR No. 318/2017 registered at Police Station

Sarmathura, Dholpur for the offences under Sections 363 and

366A IPC is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the

impugned FIR No. 318/2017 registered at Police Station
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-593/2018]

Sarmathura, Dholpur for the offences under Sections 363 and

366A IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings is quashed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

MaK/-

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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