SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tarun Chaturvedi S/O Shri Dilip … vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 23 October, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6348/2018

1. Tarun Chaturvedi S/o Shri Dilip Kumar, R/o Sangam Hotel
Ki Gali Gumanpura Kota Raj.
2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Shyam Lal, R/o Gulab Bari
Rampura Kotawali Kota Dist. Kota Raj.
3. Shabir S/o Shri Sahabuddin, R/o Sanjay Nagar Gali No 8
Bhimganj Mandi Kota Dist. Kota Raj.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj.
2. Smt. Rashmi Tiwari W/o Late Shri Nitin Tiwari, R/o B-43
Ballabh Nagar Kishorepura Kota City Dist. Kota Raj.
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Dixit
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP for State

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Order

23/10/2018

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

seeking quashing of FIR No.0141/2018, registered at Police

Station Kishorepura, Kota City for offences under Sections 452,

354, 341, 323 and 34 IPC.

Complainant in the FIR stated that she was staying at B-43,

Ballabh Nagar, Kota from last fifteen years and her husband had

expired eight years ago. She stated that she was staying

alongwith her children. She stated that on the fateful day the

accused came to her house forcefully, gave beating to her and

made her fall on the ground. Thereafter she called police station.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-6348/2018]

On the above said allegation, case has been registered

against the petitioners for offences under Sections 452, 354, 341,

323, 34 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised following two

arguments:-

(a). That the house in question has been purchased by the

petitioners in 2015 vide registered sale deed.

(b). That from a bare perusal of the FIR, no offence under

Section 354 IPC is made out.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, this court is

of the view that having purchased the property, petitioners are

necessarily not in possession of the property. As to who is in

possession of the property is a disputed question of fact. A person

who has purchased the property cannot forcibly dispossess the

person who is residing in the property. Therefore, prima facie,

offences under Sections 452, 341, 323, 34 IPC are made out. So

far offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned, this court is not

aware whether any supplementary statement has been recorded

by the Investigating Officer or not. Investigation is in progress. If

the Investigating Officer come to the conclusion that there is no

material qua offence under Section 354 IPC, he may omit the

offence.

Hence, present petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

Govind/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation