HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 667 / 2013
Vinod Kumar son of Tola Chand Panchal, resident of Diwara Bada,
Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan.
2. Deepak son of Shri Dinesh Chandra Panchal, resident of
Bhiluda, Chitari Police Station, District Dungarpur.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.MC Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.OP Rathi, P.P.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
21/12/2017
The petitioner Vinod Kumar has approached this Court by
way of this revision being aggrieved of the order dated 22.8.2013
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dungarpur Camp
Sagwara in Sessions Case No.55/2013 whereby, charges were
directed to be framed against him for the offences under Sections
498A and 306 IPC.
Facts in brief are that Smt. Deepika (referred to herein as
the deceased) was married to Suresh Chandra Panchal about 12
years before the incident. A son and a daughter were born from
her wedlock with Suresh Panchal. She allegedly called her brother
Deepak on 14.7.2012 in the morning at about 9:30 AM and
complained that her mother-in-law and her husband were
quarreling with her and her brother-in-law (Devar) was also
(2 of 7)
[CRLR-667/2013]
threatening that she should either be turned out of the house or
killed. Just 15 minutes later, Suresh called him and informed that
Deepika had caught fire. On this, Deepak rushed to the Village
Diwara Bada and saw the dead body of Deepika lying in the rear
courtyard of her matrimonial home. An FIR was lodged by Deepak
at P.S. Chitari with the specific allegation that his sister was
harassed and humiliated by her husband, mother-in-law and
Pawan and as a result thereof, she committed suicide. On the
basis of this report, an FIR No.129/2012 was registered for the
offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and investigation
commenced. During course of investigation, the I.O. collected
evidence to the effect that the deceased was carrying on an affair
with the present petitioner who happens to be a cousin brother of
Suresh. She went missing upon which Suresh got a search
warrant issued from the Court of S.D.M., Sagwara and in
pursuance thereof, the lady was traced out on 12.7.2012. As
desired by her, she was allowed to go with her husband. The first
informant, upon being examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. resiled
from the allegations set out in the FIR and stated that the FIR had
been lodged against the husband and inlaws on an impulse and as
a matter of fact, the deceased had committed suicide because she
felt grave ignominy on account of her seduction by Vinod. He
further alleged that Vinod had done some black magic on his late
sister and as a result, she committed suicide. Similar allegations
were leveled by Suresh Chand husband of the deceased, Smt.
Santok her mother-in-law, Geeta and numerous other witnesses
examined during investigation. These witnesses also alleged that
(3 of 7)
[CRLR-667/2013]
accused forcibly put a sim in Deepika’s mobile and also did some
black magic on her and as a result thereof, she became mentally
perturbed. She was very troubled because of the situation created
by the disclosure of her relations with the petitioner and as a
result, feeling ashamed, she committed suicide. In view of these
statements, the I.O. filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for
the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.
The trial Court drew the following inferences and directed
framing of charges against the petitioner as above :-
Þfo}ku vfHkHkk”kd Jh e;ad nks’kh dk rdZ gS fd e`rdk
dks mlds llqjky okyksa us vfHk;qDr fouksn ds lkFk Hkkx tkus
dks ysdj rkus fn, Fks] ftlls ijs’kku gksdj e`rdk us Lo;a
dks vkx yxkdj vkRegR;k dh gS] ftlds fy, vfHk;qDr
fouksn dks mRrjnk;h ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA
ysfdu eSa bl rdZ ls fcYdqy Hkh izHkkfor ugha gwa] D;ksafd
ifr] lkl o tsB dk ?kj dh cgq dks fdlh nhxj O;fDr ds
lkFk Hkkx tkus ij rkus nsuk furkar LokHkkfod ckr gSA e`rdk
8 o”khZ; iqh o 5 o”khZ; iq dh eka Fkh o fookfgrk iRuh
ds :i esa vius llqjky esa jg jgh Fkh] ftls vius lkFk laca/k
cukus ds fy, mdlkus dk vfHk;qDr fouksn dks u rks dkuwuu]
u gh uSfrd dksbZ vf/kdkj Fkk] fo’ks”kr% tcfd ;fn vfHk;qDr
tknw earj dj e`rdk dks /kkxk ugha igukrk ;k viuh
fle }kjk mls Qksu ugha djrk] mls vius lkFk Hkkx tkus
ds fy, ugha mdlkrk o vius lkFk ugha ys tkrk rks ;g
lEiw.kZ ?kVukØe gh tUe ugha ysrk] blfy, bl LVst ij
vfHk;qDr fouksn e`rdk dh vkRegR;k ds mRrjnkf;Ro ls eqDr
ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA pwafd vfHk;qDr fouksn e`rdk dk
fj’rs esa tsB yxrk gS rFkk mlds bl d`R; ls e`rdk
vkRegR;k ds fy, izsfjr gqbZ gSA
bl izdkj esjh fouez jk; esa vfHk;qDr fouksn iapky ds
fo:) HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 498, o 306 ds v/khu n.Muh;
vijk/k dkfjr fd, tkus dh mi/kkj.kk djus ds izFke n`”V~;k
Ik;kZIr vk/kkj miyC/k ik;s tkrs gSaAßThe said order is under challenge in this revision.
Shri M.C. Bishnoi learned counsel for the petitioner
(4 of 7)
[CRLR-667/2013]
vehemently urged that ex-facie there is no material on record so
as to justify the order framing charges against the petitioner. He
contended that by no stretch of imagination, an illicit extra marital
affair can be considered to be an act of cruelty within the meaning
of Section 498A IPC. He further urged that there is no material
whatsoever on record of the case to show that the accused ever
instigated the deceased to commit suicide. As per him, the
husband of the deceased was working in the Middle East and in his
absence, the deceased developed an extra marital love affair with
the petitioner. She eloped with the petitioner and her husband
filed an application under Section 98 Cr.P.C. and got issued a
search warrant. In furtherance of the search warrant, the lady was
discovered and at her request, she was allowed to go with her
husband. He urged that there was no contact between the
deceased and accused after the deceased had been sent with the
husband in the proceedings under Section 98 Cr.P.C. and thus, by
no stretch of imagination can the petitioner be held responsible for
instigating or abetting her to commit suicide. Rather, as per Shri
Bishnoi, the matrimonial relatives of the deceased should be held
responsible for her suicide as they taunted the lady after she
returned to the matrimonial home pursuant to the proceedings
under Section 98 Cr.P.C. and as a result thereof, she became
perturbed and ended her life. He thus urged that the revision is fit
to be accepted and the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
Per contra learned P.P. vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and urged that the petitioner
is the elder brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased. He established
(5 of 7)
[CRLR-667/2013]
immoral extramarital affairs with the deceased knowing very well
that such a relationship was a Taboo in the society and if exposed,
the matrimonial status of the lady would be destroyed and her
image would be tarnished in the society beyond redemption. The
deceased was regularly called by the accused on a mobile phone,
the sim whereof was provided to her by the accused himself.
When the relationship between the accused and the deceased
became public, the lady became severely perturbed and felt
humiliated and as a direct consequence of the immoral acts of the
accused, she committed suicide. Thus, he contended that the
impugned order does not warrant any interference whatsoever.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments
advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned order
and the charge-sheet.
The offence under Section 498A IPC is attracted when there
is an allegation that any matrimonial relative of a woman subjects
her to cruelty either mental or physical on account of demand of
dowry or such cruelty which may lead her to commit suicide. The
circumstances emanating from an extra-marital affair established
by a matured married woman with another man can by no stretch
of imagination can be termed to be cruelty within the meaning of
Section 498A IPC unless the relationship is procured by the male
paramour by fraud or deceit. Thus, ex-facie the impugned order is
grossly illegal to the extent charge under Section 498A IPC was
framed against the accused petitioner.
So far as the charge under Section 306 IPC is concerned that
(6 of 7)
[CRLR-667/2013]
is also based on the sole inference that Smt.Deepika committed
suicide as a direct result of the exposure of her illicit relations with
the accused petitioner. The deceased was a mature married
woman and she consciously and voluntarily established such
relations with the petitioner. That she felt so perturbed by the
exposure of the relations and could not withstand the ignominious
situation created thereby and ended her life is indeed regrettable
but the fact remains that when two major persons enter into such
type of extra marital liaison, then no extra burden can be put on
the male paramour involved in such amorous relationship. When
the deceased established extramarital relations with the petitioner,
she had to be conscious of the consequences that in case, the
relations were exposed, her image would be tarnished in the
society and her marriage would be put to risk. Thus, the
conclusions drawn by the trial Court in the impugned order that
the suicide committed by the deceased was purely the culmination
of the extramarital relationship and that the petitioner alone was
responsible for such act is totally without foundation. Further, the
conclusion drawn by the trial Court that the accused practiced
some black magic on the deceased and made her to wear some
threads etc. and that had he not made a mobile call to her, the
incident would not have occurred is absolutely conjectural and
fictional. The very fact as mentioned in the impugned order that
the deceased committed suicide as a result of ignominy faced by
her owing to the exposure of her illicit relations with the petitioner
is in itself sufficient to hold that the act in which she indulged was
immoral and she was equally responsible to face the
(7 of 7)
[CRLR-667/2013]
consequences thereof. It is also relevant to mention here that as
per observations made by the trial Court in the impugned order,
the matrimonial relatives taunted the lady after she returned
home pursuant to the proceeding taken by her husband under
Section 98 Cr.P.C. and soon thereafter, she committed suicide.
Apparently thus, taunts and insinuations given by the matrimonial
relatives were the direct cause of suicide committed by the lady
rather than the illicit liaison between her and the petitioner.
As an upshot of the above discussion, I am of the firm
opinion that the impugned order whereby charges were framed
against the petitioner by the learned trial Court for the offences
under Sections 498A and 306 IPC is absolutely illegal and
unjustified. Ex-facie no ingredients of the offences alleged are
made out against the accused petitioner from the highest
allegations of the prosecution.
Consequently, the instant revision petition deserves to be
and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 22.8.2013
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dungarpur Camp
Sagwara in Sessions Case No.55/2013 is hereby quashed and set
aside. The petitioner is discharged from the above offences.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.
S.Phophaliya/-