Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

REPORTABLE

1. Parents-in-law of non-petitioner No.2 have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1424/2007 and sister-in-law of non- petitioner No.2 has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1425/2007, invoking jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, for quashing the order of charges framed against petitioners for offences under Section 498-A and 323 IPC vide [2024:RJ-JP:16187] (2 of 19) [CRLMP-1424/2007] order dated 13.08.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu, District Jaipur in Criminal Case No.1244/2005, titled as State Vs. Bhagwan Sahay and Ors., and consequently to drop proceedings of present criminal case qua petitioners which have arisen out of FIR No.175/2005 registered at Police Station Samod on 14.10.2005 District Jaipur for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC.

The Family Court, in the judgment dated 19.01.2019 has taken note of such facts that husband of non-petitioner No.2 dropped her along with minor daughter on 03.09.2005, nearby to her parents' home, to attend the marriage of her younger sister which was fixed for 12.10.2005, but thereafter, FIR was lodged against husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law for offences under Section 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC.

4. It is also noteworthy that although after investigation in FIR No.175/2005, police filed charge-sheet for offences under Section 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC, but the trial Court noticed that there is no prima facie evidence to prosecute accused persons for offence under Section 406 IPC, therefore, charges have been framed only for offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and against father- in-law charge is framed only for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and no charge for offence under Section 406 IPC has been [2024:RJ-JP:16187] (4 of 19) [CRLMP-1424/2007] framed. It appears that to the extent of discharging the petitioner for offence under Section 406 IPC, the order has attained finality.

8. No one has turned up for and on behalf of non-petitioner No.2, despite service of notices for hearing of these petitions after admission.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed petitions, however, could not controvert the aforesaid factual aspects including occurrence of subsequent facts as narrated hereinabove.

10. Heard. Considered.

11. At the outset, this Court is aware that petitioners could have and ought to have challenged the impugned order of framing charges for offences under Section 498-A and 323 IPC by way of [2024:RJ-JP:16187] (6 of 19) [CRLMP-1424/2007] filing revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Session Court, but instead petitioners have opted to file these petitions invoking jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Both petitions have been filed way back in the year 2007 and show cause notices were issued to non-petitioner No.2. After service of notice, non-petitioner No.2 turned up through counsel, but record shows that no objection in respect of not availing the alternative remedy of revision by petitioners was ever raised, thereafter petitions have been admitted for hearing. After service of notices for hearing, no one has turned up on behalf of non-petitioner No.2. From the side of petitioners, apart from praying to quash the impugned order of charges, a consequential prayer has also been made to drop the criminal proceedings in the present criminal case qua petitioners, more particularly in the light of subsequent facts transpired between parties during course of these petitions. Therefore, apart from considering the impugned order of framing charge, the issue has also fallen for consideration as to whether in given facts and circumstances of the present case, criminal proceedings against petitioners on the behest of non-petitioner No.2 may be allowed to proceed or whether quashing of criminal proceedings of present criminal case qua petitioners would otherwise serve the ends of justice?

18. In the present case, allegations against petitioners are non- specific and are only general in nature, in respect of harassing non-petitioner No.2 for demand of dowry, more particularly for bringing a Maruti Car and one lakh rupees cash from her parents. There is no iota of evidence against any of petitioners to stick electric iron press on the body of non-petitioner No.2 or to commit any manhandling with her within a period of nine years after marriage. Bare and casual, allegations against mother-in-law to misbehave and maltreat non-petitioner No.2, do not attract the cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC. From the contents of FIR itself, prima facie it stands clear that non-petitioner No.2 was residing at a different home, separate from the residence of petitioners. The address of non-petitioner No.2 and address of petitioners, as mentioned in FIR, are altogether different and located at far distance with each other. Petitioners have also placed on record the copy of ration card, to show that non- petitioner No.2 and her husband, it means the son and brother of [2024:RJ-JP:16187] (13 of 19) [CRLMP-1424/2007] petitioners, is not included as joint family member in their ration card. The ration card is not a disputed document. Thus, as far as petitioners are concerned, whatever general allegations have been leveled against them are frivolous on their face value and there is no basis of such allegations, however, trial Court has proceeded to frame charge for offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC against father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law as well. Although, petitioners have been discharged from offence under Section 406 IPC, nonetheless, considering delay of more than nine years, non-specific allegations, separate living of non-petitioner No.2, and frivolity of the general allegations due to being without any support of reliable evidence, petitioners could be discharged from offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC, but the trial Court acted in excess of jurisdiction, by making a meticulous analysis of statements of witnesses and thereby committed jurisdictional error in framing charges against petitioners, along with the husband of non-petitioner No.2. The charges framed against the husband are not under challenge.