HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2576 / 2017
Ranveer Singh S/o Shri Mala Ram, Aged About 34 Years, Resident
of Rajgarh Road, Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 8, Pilani, District
Jhunjhunu.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Kavita D/o Deepchand, Resident of Ward No. 19, Taranagar,
District Churu.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, PP.
Mr. M.A. Siddiqui.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
Date of Judgment: 09/05/2018
By way of this Cr. Misc. Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking
quashing of the FIR No.200/2017 registered at the Police Station
Taranagar, District Churu for offences under Sections 498A, 406
and 323 IPC.
As per the case set up in the FIR, the petitioner and the
respondent No.2 complainant were married on 14.07.2010. After
few days of the marriage, the petitioner returned to USA where,
he was already working from before the marriage. In the
(2 of 8)
[CRLMP-2576/2017]
petitioner’s absence, his parents, sister, etc. allegedly used to
harass and humiliate the complainant/respondent No.2 on account
of demand of dowry and for various other reasons. On
24.12.2010, the complainant too went to USA. Initially, she was
treated with love and respect but a few days later, Ranveer Singh
started showing his true colours to the complainant. The
complainant’s freedom was totally curtailed. She was assaulted
and was not allowed to talk to her parents. She conceived in the
year 2011. Despite that, the accused petitioner continued to treat
the complainant cruelly saying that he did not desire the child. On
a particular day, she was beaten so brutally that she miscarried. A
few days later, she again became pregnant on which, Ranveer
Singh sent her back to India. She gave birth to a son on
07.01.2012 whereafter, she started hoping for a better treatment
from her matrimonial relations. Ranveer came to India in the last
week of October, 2012. The complainant’s parents organised a
lavish Chuchak ceremony, but the in-laws were not satisfied. She
returned to America with Ranveer on 24.11.2012 where he
resumed his cruel behaviour with the complainant. She was
beaten frequently. She was even turned out of the house. Even
their minor child was assaulted. On 10.06.2013, Ranveer
assaulted the complainant inhumanly resulting into numerous
injuries being caused to her. On one day, he also threw child on
the floor whereafter, she called the police who rescued the
complainant and her child and took them to a shelter home. An
inquiry was initiated against Ranveer who was kept in custody for
a significant period of time for his cruel and inhuman behaviour.
(3 of 8)
[CRLMP-2576/2017]
He was directed to pay 1568 dollars per month as child support.
However, Ranveer absconded from America in the month of
November, 2014 and returned to India with the intent to avoid all
liabilities which had been enforced upon him by the U.S.
authorities. The complainant continued to live in USA with her
child with great degree of difficulty and struggle. Her parents went
to her matrimonial house for settling the dispute on which, they
came to know that Ranveer was attempting to remarry.
Complainant’s father filed a complaint in police on which, Ranveer
was restrained from remarrying. Thereafter, the complainant and
her father demanded return of the stridhan articles entrusted to
the accused but they refused to part with the same on which, the
FIR came to be lodged. The petitioner Ranveer has approached
this Court by way of this misc. petition for challenging the
impugned FIR on various grounds.
Shri Vikas Bijarnia learned counsel representing the
petitioner drew the Court’s attention to the decree/ order dated
13.11.2014 issued by the competent court in USA whereby, the
marriage between the petitioner and the complainant M/s. Kavita
was dissolved. Under this decree, the petitioner Ranveer was
directed to pay 19500 dollars to Smt. Kavita in addition to certain
amount as child support. Shri Bijarnia urged that considering the
aspect that the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner
and the complainant stood terminated way back in the year 2014,
the continuance of the impugned FIR, which came to be filed after
a delay of nearly three years, amounts to a gross abuse of process
of law. He urged that while passing the decree, the Court at USA
(4 of 8)
[CRLMP-2576/2017]
settled all the properties claimed by the parties with the sole
exception that Ranveer Singh would return the wedding dress
belonging to Kavita which was lying with his extended family at
India. He urged that in the entire proceedings of divorce which
came to be initiated before the Court at California, there was no
allegation regarding the petitioner having harassed and humiliated
Kavita on account of demand of dowry. At para No.3 of the
statistical information reproduced in the judgment, the reason for
separation is mentioned as irreconcilable differences in the
marriage. He further contended that from a bare reading of the
proceedings of the US Court, it is evident that the parties never
came into contact with each other after 10.06.2013. The present
FIR came to be lodged in the year 2017 i.e. beyond the statutory
limitation of three years provided under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC both of which
are punishable with imprisonment of three years. He further urged
that so far as the allegation regarding the offence under Section
406 IPC is concerned, there is no allegation in the entire FIR that
any of the dowry articles of Smt. Kavita had ever been entrusted
to the present petitioner. He submitted that as per the admitted
allegations in the FIR, the petitioner left India for USA before the
complainant. Therefore, as per him, there was no chance that the
dowry articles of the complainant could be in the petitioner’s
custody. He urged that even if the finding given by the Court at
USA that the dowry and personal articles of Smt. Kavita would
have to be returned by the petitioner is accepted to be true, then
too, the said direction can give rise to a civil liability only. For the
(5 of 8)
[CRLMP-2576/2017]
offence under Section 406 IPC, an allegation of entrustment and
subsequent refusal to return the entrusted goods has to exist
failing which, accusation of the said offence cannot be sustained.
He therefore urged that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed
in its entirety.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Siddiqui
learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel.
They contended that the petitioner harassed and humiliated the
complainant in India as well as at USA in order to satisfy his
greed. When the complainant did not concede to his illegal
demands, she was beaten black and blue. On one occasion, the
accused assaulted the complaint so brutally that she miscarried.
The petitioner’s acts were so inhumane that he even did not spare
the child and threw him down on the floor. There is a specific
direction in the USA Court’s Judgment that the petitioner would
have to return the dowry articles of Smt. Kavita which were lying
with his extended family in India. The petitioner intentionally
absconded from USA to avoid these directions and has till date,
failed to return these articles and hence, they implored the Court
not to interfere in the impugned FIR at this nascent stage and to
reject the petition in its entirety.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the material available on record.
Looking to the pleadings of the divorce proceedings
undertaken interse between the petitioner and the complainant
(6 of 8)
[CRLMP-2576/2017]
which have been annexed to the misc. petition, it is evident that
Smt. Kavita signed and agreed to these proceedings in presence
of her Attorney on 04.08.2014. The judgment clearly records that
marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and
was beyond repair. The parties had permanently separated on
10.06.2013. Considering the language of the stipulated judgment
passed by the U.S. Court, it is apparent that the petitioner was
directed to make payment of 19,500 dollars to the respondent
complainant towards the division of assets and debts. A sum of
10,500 dollars of this amount was to be paid within a period of 15
days of the judgment and the balance was to be paid in
installments of 1000 dollars per month. However, it is virtually
admitted that soon after the judgment was pronounced, the
accused petitioner left USA and came back to India in an obvious
endeavour to avoid the liability imposed upon him by the USA
Court. However, whether or not such conduct would amount to the
offences alleged yet remains to be considered. The respondent,
did not take any action whatsoever against the petitioner for a
period of three years after passing of the stipulated judgment of
divorce by the USA Court and despite the petitioner having left
U.S.A. She conveniently concealed the fact of the said judgment
while lodging the FIR. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
accused left USA in November, 2014.
In view of these facts admitted manifested from the
allegations of the complainant as per the detailed FIR and in the
factual report placed on record by the learned Public Prosecutor, it
is evident that ex-facie, there does not exist any cogent material
(7 of 8)
[CRLMP-2576/2017]
on the record of the case so as to satisfy the Court that the
petitioner Ranveer Singh while in India, harassed or humiliated the
complainant on account of demand of dowry or treated her in such
a manner which could have lead her to commit suicide. Thus ex-
facie, ingredients of the offence under Section 498A IPC are not
established from the material available on record so as to justify
the registration of the FIR against him for the said offence.
Furthermore, upon a thorough perusal of the FIR, it is evident that
there is not even a slender allegation that any of the ‘streedhan’
articles of the complainant were ever entrusted to the accused
petitioner. Even if it is assumed for a moment that the ‘streedhan’
articles were lying with the petitioner’s extended family in India
then too, obviously it cannot be inferred that the same were
entrusted to the petitioner because admittedly, soon after the
marriage, the petitioner left India for USA and the complainant
followed him soon thereafter. Therefore, none of the offences
alleged in the FIR are ex-facie made out against the petitioner. So
far as the direction given by the USA Court in the impugned
judgment that the petitioner shall pay 19500 dollars to the
complainant and also return her ‘streedhan’ articles to her is
concerned, the same also would not be sufficient to constitute the
offence under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner, the
complainant would be required to avail appropriate remedy for
execution thereof. Likewise for the reasons mentioned above, the
offence under Section 323 IPC is also not made out against the
petitioner. However, since there is an allegation of the complainant
that her ‘streedhan’ articles are retained by her matrimonial
(8 of 8)
[CRLMP-2576/2017]
relatives and as the I.O. has mentioned in the factual report that
the offence under Section 406 IPC has been established against
the mother-in-law Risalo Devi, he would be free to proceed
against her for such offence.
In view of the discussion made herein above, the instant
misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. All further
proceedings of the impugned FIR No.200/2017 registered at the
Police Station Taranagar, District Churu are quashed qua the
petitioner Ranveer Singh.
Investigation shall continue against the other accused.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.
Tikam/