HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4364/2017

Smt. Muma W/o Bhanwra Ram, By Caste Bhatt, Resident Of
Lacha Basni, District Jodhpur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
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.
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sushil Solanki.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.JP Bhardwaj, PP.
Mr.Sunil Kachhawaha.

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

19/09/2018

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

IPC.

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.

S.Phophaliya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)