SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prakash @ Omprakash S/O Shri … vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 October, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6539/2018

Prakash @ Omprakash S/o Shri Goverdhan B/c Meena, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village Udaipura, Bhusavar, Tehsil Kherli,
District Alwar, Raj.

—-Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

2. Sunita Meena W/o Shri Pradeep B/c Meena, R/o
Bhaisina, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Alwar, At Present
R/o Nithar, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Alwar, Raj.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Madhu Meena
For the State : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, P.P.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

/ Order

24/10/2018

Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.273/2017

registered at Police Station Bhusawar District Bharatpur for

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 341 and

354 I.P.C.

Complainant/respondent No.2 – Sunita Meena on

13.07.2016, as per Hindu Customs Rites was married with

Pradeep Kumar son of Rajaram. The petitioner is a maternal

uncle of Pradeep Kumar, husband of complainant.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

submitted that the petitioner has involved as many as twenty-

two persons of the family of the husband as accused.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-6539/2018]

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant/

respondent No.2, has submitted that general, omnibus and

vague allegations have been levelled against all members of the

family.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner 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 the provisions of Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C.

have been misused and unnecessarily all family members have

been involved in the matrimonial offences, who have nothing to

gain from the alleged demand of dowry.

The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State,

after going through the impugned F.I.R. has very fairly

submitted that there is no specific allegation against the

petitioner pertaining to offence punishable under Section 354

I.P.c.

Taking into account the submissions made above by

ld. counsel for the petitioner, relationship of the petitioner, who

is maternal uncle of the husband of the complainant, along with

the fact that the complainant has involved twenty-two person as

accused, the present petition is accepted and the impugned

F.I.R., qua the petitioner only is quashed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

ashok

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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