Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jitendra Jain vs State on 12 August, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1874/2020
1. Jitendra Jain S/o Praveen Jain, Aged About 46 Years,
Jhalrapatan, Near Nagarpalika Office, Dist. Jhalawar.
2. Praveen Chand Jain S/o Devi Lal, Aged About 75 Years,
Jhalrapatan, Near Nagarpalika Office, Dist. Jhalawar.
3. Manoj Kumar Jain S/o Praveen Jain, Aged About 40 Years,
Jhalrapatan, Near Nagarpalika Office, Dist. Jhalawar.
4. Smt. Shweta Jain W/o Ramesh Chandra Jain D/o Praveen
Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, Indore Madyapradesh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through P.P.
2. Hema W/o Jitendra Jain, Aged About 45 Years, 372, Naya
Bazar, Ravatbhatta, Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
12/08/2021
The case at hand reveals a very peculiar set of facts. The
respondent No.2 originally hailed from a Scheduled Caste family.
She and the petitioner No.1 Jitendra Jain contracted a love
marriage way back in the year 1999. The spouses happily
continued matrimony for a period of almost 14 years whereafter,
their relations became strained. Seven years later, the respondent
No.2 complainant filed the FIR against the petitioners herein for
the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 & 34 IPC and
Section 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST Act.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1874/2020]
As per the factual report submitted on record by the learned
Public Prosecutor, the involvement of petitioner No.2 Praveen
Chand Jain, petitioner No.3 Manoj Kumar Jain and petitioner No.4
Smt. Shweta Jain has not been found proved for the offences
alleged. However, qua the petitioner No.1 Jitendra Jain, the I.O.
has applied the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act which is
the bone of contention in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel Shri Umesh Kant Vyas urges that the
respondent No.2, having married the petitioner No.1 way back in
the year 1999, became a member of the family of the petitioners
and by virtue of the patriarchal family system which prevails in the
country, the complainant automatically melded into the caste of
the petitioner i.e. Jain. In support of his contention, Shri Vyas
placed reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment rendered in the
case of Mrs. Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin University & Ors.
reported in AIR 1996 SC 1011. He thus urges that the I.O. may
be directed to seek legal opinion as to whether the offence under
Section 3 of the SC/ST Act can be applied in the background of
the above legal and factual position.
The issue requires consideration.
Thus, the petitioners are given liberty to submit a detailed
representation to the I.O. alongwith a copy of the above
judgment. The I.O. shall seek legal opinion on the pertinent aspect
of applicability of the offence punishable under Section 3 of the
SC/ST Act in the instant case and shall file the result of
investigation in the court concerned thereafter. Needless to say
that if a charge-sheet is filed by the I.O. applying the offence
under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, the petitioner shall be at liberty
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1874/2020]
to raise all permissible legal objections before the appropriate
forum at the appropriate stage.
The misc. petition is disposed of in these terms. Stay
application is also disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
72-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
