Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vimla Devi & Ors vs State & Anr on 20 February, 2018
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2337 / 2016
1.Vimla Devi W/o Tara Chand, aged 55 years
2. Tara Chand S/o Ganesha Ram
3. Parvender S/o Tara Chand, aged 31 years,
All by caste Arora, resident of House No. 6-A, Gali No.3, Prem
Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.
4. Baby @ Simran W/o Lovly Chhabra, aged 35 years, resident of
Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Leela W/o Parvinder, resident of Ward No.2, Suratgarh
District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S.Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP with Mr. Niket
Kumar IO and Mr. R.Bhatnagar.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order 20/02/2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned P.P. assisted by I.O. and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.
By way of the instant petition under Section; 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners herein have approached this Court for assailing the proceedings of the F.I.R. No. 394/2016 registered at P.S. Suratgarh City District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 377, 342, 307, 34 IPC.
It is the admitted prosecution case that the respondent no.2 (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2337/2016] Smt. Leela entered into a love marriage with the present petitioner no. 3 Parvinder in the year 2015. However, the matrimonial relations went sour on which Smt. Leela lodged an F.I.R. No. 244/2016 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC. During the course of investigation of the said F.I.R., the parties reached to a settlement and accordingly on the written application of the respondent complainant, the I.O. submitted a negative final report with the conclusion that the complainant lodged the F.I.R. in a fit of anger on the basis of concocted allegations. The matrimonial relations were resumed and soon thereafter, the present F.I.R. came to be lodged. It is an admitted position as emerging from record that Smt. Leela has filed a protest petition in relation to earlier prosecution and the same is pending consideration before the competent Court. When Smt. Leela was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the present case, she categorically admitted that she was living separately with her husband in a distinct portion of the joint family property. The allegations of assault etc. are also specifically attributed to the husband i.e. petitioner no.3.
In this background and keeping in view the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SC-3363, this Court feels that allowing prosecution of petitioners no. 1 and 2 being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant and the petitioner no. 4 being the sister-in-law (Nanad) for the above offences is absolutely unwarranted and amounts to a gross abuse of process of law. However, the petitioner no.3 is liable to be (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2337/2016] prosecuted as the allegations levelled against him do indicate the ingredients of cognizable offences.
In view of the above discussion, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed in part. Further proceedings of the impunged F.I.R. No. 394/2016 registered at P.S. Suratgarh City are quashed qua the petitioner no.1 Vimla Devi, petitioner no.2 Tara Chand and petitioner no. 4 Baby @ Simran. However, the investigation shall continue against the petitioner no. 3 Parvinder. In case the I.O. comes to a conclusion regarding offences being proved against petitioner no. 3, then the report of investigation shall be submitted in the Court which is seized of the protest petition referred to supra and both the proceedings shall be consolidated.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/sushil/