Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vinod Swami vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 16 November, 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 492/2016
Vinod Swami S/o Shri Ramdayal Swami, R/o 1309, Ward
No. 17, Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur.
...Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its P.P.
2. Smt. Kusumlata Sarwan S/o Shri Mitthu Lal Sarwan
R/o Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur.
...Victim-Respondent
3. Mitthu Lal Sarwan S/o Panchu Lal Harijan R/o
Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur.
......Complainant-Respondent
DATE OF ORDER ::: 16th, November, 2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Present-
Mr. Sumit Khandelwal for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vineet Dixit for the Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Virendra Godara, PP.
Petitioner accused Vinod Swami has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 3/2016 registered at Police Station Malarna Dungar, Sawai Madhopur for offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.
Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Sumit Khandelwal submits that petitioner and respondent No. 2 victim are major and they have entered into wedlock with their sweet will. The marriage of petitioner and respondent No. 2 has got registered before the Registrar, Hindu Marriages Sub-Divisional Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh on 06.01.2016 and they are living as husband and wife peacefully. He submits that since the marriage took place 2 against the will of family members of respondent No. 2, therefore they falsely lodged FIR No. 3/2016 at Police Station Malarna Dungar, Sawai Madhopur, therefore, same may be quashed. He also submits that respondent No. 2 victim is also present before this court with her counsel Vineet Dixit.
Learned PP. Shri Virendra Godara submits that in pursuance of order of this court dated 20.07.2016, the statement of respondent No. 2 victim has been recorded by the Deputy Registrar Judicial of this Court wherein she clearly stated that petitioner was her school fellow and she was in love with him since 2-3 years and thereafter with her own sweet will she got married with petitioner on 06.01.2016 at Ghaziabad, therefore, if the petition is allowed he has no objection.
No one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 even after service of notice.
Shri Vineet Dixit learned counsel who identified the respondent No. 2 Smt. Kusumlata supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Since respondent No. 2 victim is major. Her Date of Birth as per her Secondary School Examination marks sheet is 10.05.1991. She got married with petitioner with her own sweet will and is living with him as his wife, therefore, continuing the proceedings of FIR is abuse of process of Court.
In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335], Hon'ble Supreme Court framed 7 grounds for quashing FIR which are as under :-
"105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the 3 following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a 4 Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
In the case in hand since respondent No. 2 victim is major and petitioner and respondent No. 2 have got married with their sweet will, therefore, no offence is made out against the present petitioner and continuing the FIR is abuse of process of Law as such the petition is allowed and impugned FIR No. 3/2016 registered at Police Station Malarna Dungar, Sawai Madhopur under Sections 363 and 366 and proceedings are quashed and set aside.
[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J.
Komal/104.