Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sonam Pachori vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 April, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:12835] (1 of 7) [CRLMP-6152/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6152/2021
1. Sonam Pachori D/o Anit Vyas, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Golden Gyam Macaronia, Gayatri Nagar, District Sagar
State M.p.
2. Saorabh Vyas S/o Anit Vyas, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Golden Gyam Macaronia, Gayatri Nagar, District Sagar
State M.p.
3. Shivani Vyas D/o Anit Vyas, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Golden Gyam Macaronia, Gayatri Nagar, District Sagar
State M.p.
4. Shubham Vyas S/o Anit Vyas, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Golden Gyam Macaronia, Gayatri Nagar, District Sagar
State M.p.
5. Anit Vyas S/o Ramswaroop Vyas, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Golden Gyam Macaronia, Gayatri Nagar, District
Sagar State M.p.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Gorash S/o Jageshwar Bohra, R/o Bhatiyo Ka Bash,
Brampuri, Khandafalsa, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trilok Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Puri
Mr. Sushil Kumar Prajapat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
03/04/2024 The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:-
"it is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and F.I.R. No. 108/2021 registered at P.S. Khandafalsa, District Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set-aside."(Downloaded on 03/04/2024 at 08:44:06 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:12835] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-6152/2021] Succinctly stated, facts of the present case are that First Information Report No.108/2021 (the impugned FIR) was registered against the petitioners at the instance of respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 384, 388, 389 and 120-B of the IPC. The impugned FIR discloses that respondent No.2 initiated contact with the petitioner No.1 through her online marriage profile of an account at jeevansathi.com in the year 2019, wherein the status of the petitioner No.1 was shown to be a 'Divorcee'. Petitioner No.1, on 4.12.2019 came to Jodhpur with her brother Saorabh Vyas (petitioner No.2), and met with family members of the respondent No.2. Thereafter, marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was finalized. On confirmation of the marriage between them and upon being asked by petitioner No.1, the respondent No.2 purchased expensive jewellery and clothes for the petitioner No.1 & 2.
The FIR further discloses that on 31.12.2019, respondent No.2 visited Sagar, Madhya Pradesh to meet with the family members of the petitioner No.1. He was told by the parents of the petitioner No.1 that she is already married, however her divorce case is still pending before the competent court in which she would get the decree of divorce in the year 2020. Thereupon, they performed the engagement ceremony of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1.
In the impugned FIR it has further alleged that on 16.01.2020, petitioner No.1 came to Jodhpur to attend the marriage functions of the younger brother (Lokesh) of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 also attended the marriage functions of the younger sister (Shivani) of the petitioner No.1 on (Downloaded on 03/04/2024 at 08:44:06 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:12835] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-6152/2021] 30.01.2020. The respondent No.2 on both the occasions incurred a huge expenditure for the purchase of jewellery and other gift articles including clothes etc., for the petitioner No.1 and her family members.
The respondent No.2, as per the impugned FIR, in the month of February, 2020 being influenced by the sweet talks of the petitioner No.1, purchased a shop for running a beauty parlor for her and also deposited an advance sum, thereafter he was pressurized to accompany her to go to Delhi in order to purchase expensive articles and furniture for being installed in the said beauty parlor.
The case of the respondent No.2 is that the petitioners No.1 to 5 hatched a criminal conspiracy with the intention of cheating him and he was visited by financial frauds on several occasions, on a false promise of marriage with the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 was not a divorcee, however her account on jeevansathi.com disclosed her status as a 'divorcee'. The respondent No.2 had accepted the proposal of marriage with the petitioner No.1 only on seeing her status on jeevansathi.com.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would indicate that the respondent No.2 came in contact with the petitioner No.1 in the year 2019. He thereafter met with the petitioner No.1 and her family members on several occasions at different places. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.2 maintained his contact/relationship with the petitioner No.1 despite having information that she is not a divorcee and her case for divorce with her husband is pending before the competent court. Thus, the question of her denying (Downloaded on 03/04/2024 at 08:44:06 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:12835] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-6152/2021] marriage with the respondent No.2 before getting a decree of divorce does not arise in the matter as it is not possible to marry another man during the subsistence of a marriage. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount spent by the respondent No.2 on different occasions on being requested by the petitioner No.1 or otherwise was totally voluntary without there being any cheating or intention to defraud on part of the present petitioners.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the continuation of the prosecution in the present case will be a gross abuse of the process of law, therefore no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution in the present matter..
Per Contra, learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have vehemently and fervently opposed the present criminal misc. petition.
Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned FIR discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioners and therefore this is not a fit case where the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised by this Court for quashing of the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that the criminal proceedings in the present case are not motivated by malice or ulterior motives rather a genuine complaint has been made by the complainant.
To substantiate these submissions, attention of the Court was drawn towards the factual report of the case dated 12.03.2024 and the case diary wherein the investigating agency has found that the offences under Sections 420, 406, 384, 120-B of the IPC have been sufficiently made out against the present (Downloaded on 03/04/2024 at 08:44:06 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:12835] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-6152/2021] petitioners. Further, no offences under Sections 388, 389 of the IPC are made out against the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.
Manifestly, in the present case, a perusal of the latest factual report indicates that the offences under Sections 420, 406, 384, 120-B IPC have been found to be proved by the investigation agency. On a close scrutiny of the case file, this Court finds that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 got acquainted with each other in the year 2019. The petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 thereafter introduced their family members to each other and also visited their native places on different occasions.
As per the FIR, the respondent No.2, during his visit to Sagar, Madhya Pradesh on 31.12.2019, was categorically informed by the parents of the petitioner No.1 that she is not a divorcee and a divorce petition filed by her and her husband is pending adjudication before the competent court. Thus, on 31.12.2019, respondent No.2 received a definite information about the marital status of the petitioner No.1. It is thus apparent that even after knowing that the petitioner no.1 was already married, the respondent No.2 still continued to maintain his relationship with the petitioner No.1.
This Court does not find any material available on record to establish that the expenditure made by the respondent No.2 on various occasions after 31.12.2019 was not voluntary or the same was induced or coerced as a result of false disclosure of marital status of the petitioner No.1. Admittedly, even after 31.12.2019, (Downloaded on 03/04/2024 at 08:44:06 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:12835] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-6152/2021] healthy relations between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 continued and also there was an engagement ceremony between them.
This Court finds sufficient force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that had the petitioners held any intention of committing the alleged offence of cheating or defrauding the respondent No.2 or deceiving him by concealing the information regarding the marital status of petitioner No.1, then the accused-petitioners would definitely have kept respondent No.2 in the dark and the petitioners would not have disclosed the factum regarding the pendency of the divorce petition to respondent No.2. In the contemporary scenario, there may be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and also the proposal not reaching the desired destination, however, this would not mean that the same would amount to commission of the offences under Sections 420, 406 of the IPC.
This Court also does not find any material on record indicating that the respondent No.2 was put in any fear of injury or any threatening by the petitioners to coerce him to deliver part with any property or valuable securities to them. Rather, as noticed above it is clear as daylight that all the expenditures made by the respondent No.2 on different occasions were completely voluntary and out of his free will and volition, and the least to have been made under the belief that he would be marrying the petitioner No.1 in future.
Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No.108/2021 deserve to be (Downloaded on 03/04/2024 at 08:44:06 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:12835] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-6152/2021] quashed and set aside. The continuation of the prosecution in the present case will be a gross abuse of the process of law.
Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned FIR No. No.108/2021 registered at Police Station Khandafalsa, District Jodhpur for the offences under Section 420, 406, 384, 388, 389, 120-B of the IPC and all proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside qua the present petitioners.
All pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 412-Hanuman/-
(Downloaded on 03/04/2024 at 08:44:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)