HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 322 / 2018
1. Sagar Joshi Son of Shri Banwari Lal Joshi, Serving As Electrical
Engineer, Allahabad, Resident of B.K Kaul Nagar, Krishna Vihar
Colony, Ajmer. (Husband)
2. Smt. Shanta Wife of Shri Banwari Lal Joshi, Residing At B.K
Kaul Nagar, Krishna Vihar Colony, Ajmer. (Mother-in-law)
3. Banwari Lal Son of Shri Ram Shankar, Residing At B.K Kaul
Nagar, Krishna Vihar Colony, Ajmer. (Father-in-law)
4. Smt. Sapna Sultaniya Wife Shri Deepak Sultaniya, Residing At
Bhilwara. Since 2012 (Nanad/sister-in-law)
5. Deepak Sultaniya Son of Satyanaryan, Residing At Bhilwara.
6. Smt. Santosh Wife of Shri Kishan Gopal, Residing At Beawar.
Since 1984 (Married Bua)
7. Ram Babu Son of Shri Amarchand Ji, Residing At Vishali Nagar,
Ajmer. (Mediator/Family Friend)
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Raveena, Daughter of Shri Surendra Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, Resident of 196/3 Ram Nagar, Pali.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Rawal, PP
Mr. Vineet Jain
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of FIR
No.43/2018 of Police Station Mahila Thana, Pali for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 354 IPC read with
under Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(2 of 2)
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report
wherein, it is mentioned that after thorough investigation the
police have not found involvement of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 in
commission of any crime and therefore they have proposed to file
negative final report in respect of them.
It is further stated by learned Public Prosecutor that in
respect of the petitioner No.1 – Sagar Joshi, the police have found
prima facie case against him for offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC.
At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that he does not want to press this criminal misc.
petition on behalf of the petitioners, however, seeks liberty for
petitioner No.1 to move appropriate representation before the
Investigating Officer. It is also prayed that the Investigating
Officer be directed to consider the representation filed on behalf of
the petitioner No.1 objectively.
Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed as not
pressed with the liberty as prayed for.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
It is expected that if any such representation is filed on
behalf of the petitioner No.1, the same shall be considered
objectively by the Investigating Officer.
Factual report be taken on record.