Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr Siddharth Aswal vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 9 November, 2013
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur
Order
Dr.Siddharth Aswal
vs
State and another
S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1164/2013 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.204/2012 u/ss 498A and 406 IPC registered at Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (West)
Date of order - 9.11.2013
Present
Hon'ble Mrs Justice Nisha Gupta
Mr. Biri Singh Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini for petitioner.
Mr. Sanjeev Mehla, Public Prosecutor
Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma for respondent no.2.
By the Court:
This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No.204/2012 u/ss 498A and 406 IPC registered at Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (West). The contention of the petitioner is that FIR has been registered on incorrect, baseless and hypothetical facts and whole family of the present petitioner who is husband of the complainant has been dragged in the FIR. Earlier the complainant has also moved an application which was inquired and it was found that complainant has resided at Udaipurwati only for one day. Present petitioner has moved representations to authorities and this FIR has been lodged just to harass the petitioner. He is ready to keep complainant hence proceeding instituted by way of FIR be quashed. Per contra, the contention of counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor is that specific allegations have been lodged in FIR as regards cruelty, demand of dowry and misappropriation of Stridhan. Earlier complaint of the petitioner was not properly inquired and whether she remained in Udaipurwati or not is not a relevant consideration qua the present petitioner as he is husband of the complainant and the fact cannot be disputed that they resided together at Ajmer and other places. The factual report has also been placed by the learned Public Prosecutor that present petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation and Stridhan has also to be recovered. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and relevant record placed before me. The only relevant consideration while considering the question for quashing FIR is the allegations contained in the FIR. A bare reading of the impugned FIR reveals that specific allegations of cruelty, demand of dowry and misappropriation of jewelery and dowry articles have been alleged against the petitioner, hence no case is made out for quashing of FIR qua the present petitioner. Petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. (Nisha Gupta),J omc-1 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Om Prakash PA In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur Order Om Prakash Sihag vs State and another S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1153/2013 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.475/2012 registered at Police Station Khetri, Jhunjhunu for offences u/s 135 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act,2003.
Date of order - 9.11.2013 Present Hon'ble Mrs Justice Nisha Gupta Mr.PS Sirohi for petitioner.
Mr.Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor Mr.Ronak Singhi for respondent no.2.
By the Court:
This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No.475/2012 registered at Police Station Khetri, Jhunjhunu for offences u/s 135 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act,2003.
The case of the petitioner is that he is ownerG M contention of the petitioner is that FIR has been registered on incorrect, baseless and hypothetical facts and whole family of the present petitioner who is husband of the complainant has been dragged in the FIR. Earlier the complainant has also moved an application which was inquired and it was found that complainant has resided at Udaipurwati only for one day. Present petitioner has moved representations to authorities and this FIR has been lodged just to harass the petitioner. He is ready to keep complainant hence proceeding instituted by the FIR be quashed.
Per contra, the contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that specific allegations have been lodged in FIR as regards cruelty, demand of dowry and misappropriation of Stridhan. Earlier complaint of the petitioner was not properly inquired and whether she remained in Udaipurwati or not is not a relevant consideration qua the present petitioner and he is husband of the complainant and the fact cannot be disputed that they resided together at Ajmer and other places. The factual report has also been placed by the learned Public Prosecutor that present petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation and Stridhan has also to be recovered.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned FIR as well as papers presented by the petitioner.
The only relevant consideration while considering offences u/ss 498A and 406 IPC for quashing FIR is the allegations contained in the FIR. A bare reading of the impugned FIR reveals that specific allegations of cruelty, demand of dowry and misappropriation of jewelery and dowry articles have been alleged against the petitioner, hence no case is made out for quashing FIR qua the present petitioner. Petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
(Nisha Gupta),J om,c-1 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Om Prakash PA