Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Raj Bhanwar @ Ajay Singh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 14 September, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
Crlmp3195/2016
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER
IN
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.3195/2016
(With Stay Appl. No.3313/2016)
1. Raj Bhanwar @ Ajay Singh S/o Man
Singh, by caste Rajput, Resident of
Village Pancholas, Police Station
Ranwanjna Dungar, Sawaimadhopur
2. Man Singh s/o Govind Singh,
Resident of village Pancholas, Police
Station Ranwanjna Dungar, District
Sawaimadhopur
3. Suresh Kanwar W/o Man Singh, by
caste Rajput, Resident of village
Pancholas, Police Station Ranwanjna
Dungar, District Sawaimadhopur
...Accused-petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Superintendent of Police,
Sawaimadhopur
3. S.H.O., Police Station Ranwanjna
Dungar, District Sawaimadhopur
...Non-applicants
4. Gopal Singh S/o Chotu Singh, by
caste Rajput, Resident of Talwas, DEI,
District Bundi
...Complainant-non-petitioner
Date of Order ::: 14.09.2016
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Mr. Tarun Jain, counsel for accused-petitioner
Mr. A.D. Khan, Public Prosecutor, for the respondent State
####
By the Court:-
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by three petitioners, namely, Raj Bhanwar @ Ajay Singh S/o Man Singh, Man Singh S/o Govind Singh and Suresh Kanwar W/o Man Singh, who are respectively husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The FIR was originally registered for offence under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC at the instance of complainant-respondent no.4 Gopal Singh, who is brother of deceased.
Learned counsel for accused-petitioners submitted that the police are in the process of investigating the matter. Though, the original FIR was registered under Crlmp3195/2016 // 2 // Sections 498-A and 302 IPC but now the police is investigating the matter adding the offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 498-A IPC.
Learned counsel submitted that father-in-law, mother-in-law, namely, petitioners no.2 and 3 used to reside separately, whereas petitioner no.1, who is husband of deceased, with his wife (deceased) and one child aged about four-and-half-year, used to stay in an independent house away from them. The deceased has committed suicide by consuming poisonous thing. Petitioner no.2, who was at that time on government duty, came to know about the incident when the minor child of the petitioner no.1 approached the petitioner no.3, grandmother. The police is not taking any note of the fact about his attendance in the office whereas he has produced the duty certificate on record. Similarly, the husband was also away at Jaipur for his job work of electricity.
It is also argued that before the deceased committed suicide, she was in conversation with some one for more than an hour but call details have not been procured by the investigating officer.
All these arguments should be agitated by the petitioners before the Investigating Officer and it is for him to draw the conclusion while filing the result of the investigation.
The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly disposed of. This also disposes of the stay application.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//42