HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4364/2017
Smt. Muma W/o Bhanwra Ram, By Caste Bhatt, Resident Of
Lacha Basni, District Jodhpur.
1. The State Of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Mor @ Dhokal W/o Shri Subhas, D/o Gopal Ram, By
Caste Bhatt, Resident Of Mohangarh, Police Station
Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sushil Solanki.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.JP Bhardwaj, PP.
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.35/2017
registered at Women Police Station (Mahila Thana), District
Jaisalmer for the offence under Sections 406, 498A and 120B of
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner’s husband lodged FIR No.36/2017 against the present
respondent no.2 for offences under Sections 302 and 143 of IPC
and during the course of investigation, the complainant and others
were arrested for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and thus,
the present FIR has been filed as a counterblast.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-4364/2017]
the present FIR is the outcome of the dispute between the parties
and the death of son of the petitioner would not impact the
allegations. Counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that from a
perusal of the FIR, the offence under Sections 498A, 406 120B
of IPC are made out.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that after thorough
investigation, the police has found that the offence under Sections
498A and 120B of IPC has not been made out and only offence
under Section 406 of IPC has been made out against the
petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since
investigation has been completed, therefore, the present petition
ought not to be interfered and the parties may be left to adopt
their own recourse before the Court below.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
after perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the
opinion that the facts of the case do not call for invocation of
inherent jurisdiction which has a very narrow scope and it is very
difficult for this Court to conclude that offence is not made out
from the language of the FIR impugned unless it is reflected on
the face of FIR. However, without expressing any opinion on
merits, this Court declines to grant any indulgence to the
petitioner. However, looking to the age of the petitioner (mother-
in-law), this Court deems it proper to direct the investigation
officer to submit the result of investigation before the learned
Court below and if the charge-sheet is required to be filed, then
the petitioner shall be at liberty to move a bail application before
the Court below within a period of 7 days of filing of the charge-
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4364/2017]
sheet and until then, the petitioner shall not be arrested. The
learned Court below is directed to decide the bail application on
the same day in accordance with law. In case, the petitioner fails
to appear accordingly, the learned Court below shall take strict
action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this
misc. petition is disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)