Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahaveer Prasad vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:29626) on 22 July, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:29626]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4240/2024
Mahaveer Prasad S/o Shri Nathu Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Dabri, Tehsil Taranagar, Churu
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Rajni Kumari D/o Shri Swaran Singh, W/o
Mahaveer Prasad, At Present R/o Chubkiya Tal, Tehsil
Sidhmukh, Dist. Churu
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order 22/07/2024
1. Petitioner/husband herein is before this Court seeking the quashing of FIR No.74/2024, dated 01.06.2024, under Sections 498-A, 406 & 323 of IPC, registered at P.S. Sidhmukh, District Churu, on the complaint filed by his wife.
2. The present petition stems inter alia, from allegations by Smt. Rajni Kumari/complainant-wife against her husband/petitoner, asserting that her marriage on 20.02.2015 was followed by mistreatment due to insufficient dowry. She left her matrimonial home on 23.04.2024, influenced by her sisters-in- law, leading to FIR No.74/2024 under Sections 498A, 406, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code at PS Sidhmukh, Churu. The petitioner claims that after eight years of marriage without complaints, this FIR coincides with his application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and is (Downloaded on 23/07/2024 at 08:55:12 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:29626] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4240/2024] intended to harass him. Hence the instant petition to prevent legal abuse and ensure justice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was a simple middle- class affair, devoid of any extravagant display. The petitioner even contributed by providing necessary jewelry and other articles to the bride's family. Throughout their eight-years of marriage, there were no complaints or allegations against the petitioner. However, following the filing of the complaint, the police have begun harassing the petitioner despite his lack of involvement in the alleged misconduct. This harassment appears to be driven by political influence rather than any genuine wrongdoing on the petitioner's part.
3.1 Moreover, he argues that initiation of prosecution and investigation based on the impugned FIR represents an abuse of legal process. To uphold the principles of justice, and fairness, and to prevent further undue harassment of the petitioner, the FIR in question should be quashed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner ought to be set aside as they lack merit and serve no purpose other than to cause unwarranted distress to the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PP and have perused the material available on record.
5. I do not find it a fit case for interference as the investigation is still at a preliminary stage as the FIR was registered as recently as 01.06.2024. In any case, the petitioner need not have any apprehension of his arrest, which seems to be the reason for (Downloaded on 23/07/2024 at 08:55:12 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:29626] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4240/2024] instituting the present proceedings seeking quashing of FIR, in view of the guidelines/directions issued by Apex Court in a judgement rendered Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr1. Same are reproduced below :-
" 11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions:
11.1 All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;
11.2 All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); 11.3 The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; 11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
11.5 The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; 11.6 Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.7 Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. 11.8 Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court."
6. In view of the aforesaid, it is expected of the prosecution to proceed strictly in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines, 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 (Downloaded on 23/07/2024 at 08:55:12 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:29626] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4240/2024] including the requirement of issuance of notice under section 41-A of Cr.P.C., if the situation so warrants.
7. Disposed of accordingly.
(ARUN MONGA),J 33-Sumit/-
Whether Fit for Reporting: Yes / No
(Downloaded on 23/07/2024 at 08:55:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)