HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2337 / 2016
1.Vimla Devi W/o Tara Chand, aged 55 years
2. Tara Chand S/o Ganesha Ram
3. Parvender S/o Tara Chand, aged 31 years,
All by caste Arora, resident of House No. 6-A, Gali No.3, Prem
Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.
4. Baby @ Simran W/o Lovly Chhabra, aged 35 years, resident of
Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Leela W/o Parvinder, resident of Ward No.2, Suratgarh
District Sri Ganganagar.
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S.Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP with Mr. Niket
Kumar IO and Mr. R.Bhatnagar.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
20/02/2018

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned P.P. assisted

by I.O. and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the

material on record.

By way of the instant petition under Section; 482 Cr.P.C., the

petitioners herein have approached this Court for assailing the

proceedings of the F.I.R. No. 394/2016 registered at P.S.

Suratgarh City District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under

Sections 498A, 406, 377, 342, 307, 34 IPC.

It is the admitted prosecution case that the respondent no.2
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-2337/2016]

Smt. Leela entered into a love marriage with the present

petitioner no. 3 Parvinder in the year 2015. However, the

matrimonial relations went sour on which Smt. Leela lodged an

F.I.R. No. 244/2016 against the petitioners for the offences under

Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC. During the course of

investigation of the said F.I.R., the parties reached to a settlement

and accordingly on the written application of the respondent

complainant, the I.O. submitted a negative final report with the

conclusion that the complainant lodged the F.I.R. in a fit of anger

on the basis of concocted allegations. The matrimonial relations

were resumed and soon thereafter, the present F.I.R. came to be

lodged. It is an admitted position as emerging from record that

Smt. Leela has filed a protest petition in relation to earlier

prosecution and the same is pending consideration before the

competent Court. When Smt. Leela was examined under Section

161 Cr.P.C. in the present case, she categorically admitted that

she was living separately with her husband in a distinct portion of

the joint family property. The allegations of assault etc. are also

specifically attributed to the husband i.e. petitioner no.3.

In this background and keeping in view the law as laid down

by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta Anr. Vs.

State of Jharkhand Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SC-3363, this

Court feels that allowing prosecution of petitioners no. 1 and 2

being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant and

the petitioner no. 4 being the sister-in-law (Nanad) for the above

offences is absolutely unwarranted and amounts to a gross abuse

of process of law. However, the petitioner no.3 is liable to be
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-2337/2016]

prosecuted as the allegations levelled against him do indicate the

ingredients of cognizable offences.

In view of the above discussion, the misc. petition deserves

to be and is hereby allowed in part. Further proceedings of the

impunged F.I.R. No. 394/2016 registered at P.S. Suratgarh City

are quashed qua the petitioner no.1 Vimla Devi, petitioner no.2

Tara Chand and petitioner no. 4 Baby @ Simran. However, the

investigation shall continue against the petitioner no. 3 Parvinder.

In case the I.O. comes to a conclusion regarding offences being

proved against petitioner no. 3, then the report of investigation

shall be submitted in the Court which is seized of the protest

petition referred to supra and both the proceedings shall be

consolidated.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

/sushil/