HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2581/2018
Tarsem Singh @ Semu S/o Sh. Surendrapal Singh, Aged About
28 Years, B/c Ramgadhiya, R/o Ahemdpura, Teh. And Police
Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.
1. State, Through PP
2. Sarvjeet Kaur W/o Tarsem Singh, S/o Gurmail Singh, B/c
Ramgadhiya, R/o W.no. 5 Jaitsar, Police Station Jaitsar,
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Sandhu
Mr. D.S. Gharsana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, P.P.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated
18.05.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as
‘the revisional court’), whereby the criminal revision petition
No.78/2017 filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.
The said criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Complaint No.488/2017, whereby
the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the criminal
proceedings pending against him on the ground that cognizance
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2581/2018]
for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC
cannot be taken against him because the incidents of cruelty,
breach of trust and causing hurt to the complainant took place
three years prior to the filing of the complaint by the respondent
The trial court has dismissed the said application of the
petitioner and ordered for taking cognizance against him for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC while
observing that in the complaint as well as in her statement, the
complainant has clearly stated that a month prior to filing of the
compliant/FIR by her, she was treated with cruelty by the
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the courts
below have not taken into consideration the fact that in the
complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and
other persons, she has highlighted the incidents which took place
three years prior to filing of the complaint and no incident which
had happened within three years of the date of filing of the
complaint has been highlighted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
order of taking cognizance against the petitioner by the trial court
and confirmed by the appellate court are bad in the eye of law and
the same are liable to be set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this criminal misc.
petition and submitted that there is no illegality in passing the
impugned orders passed by the courts below.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after
going through the impugned orders as well as the material
collected by the police during the course of investigation, I am of
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2581/2018]
the opinion that trial court as well as the revisional court have not
committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders.
It is noticed that in the complaint filed by the respondent
No.2, she has specifically averred that a month prior from filing of
the complaint, she was treated with cruelty by the petitioner and
other persons. During the course of investigation, the police have
also recorded statements of complainant and other witnesses
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein also, many of the witnesses
have confirmed that few days prior to filing of the complaint by
the respondent No.2, the petitioner and other accused persons
demanded dowry and treated the respondent No.2 with cruelty.
Having taken into consideration the above peace of evidence
collected by the police, during the course of investigation, I do not
find any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the cognizance cannot be taken against him for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC
because all the incidents and complaints took place three years
prior to the date of the filing of the complaint.
Hence, there is no force in this criminal misc. petition and
the same is hereby dismissed.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)