Rajasthan High Court
Ravi Kant Agarwal S/O Shree Shvam ... vs Preeti Agarwal D/O Balmukund ... on 11 February, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7979/2019
1. Ravi Kant Agarwal S/o Shree Shvam Sunder Agarwal,
Aged About 33 Years, 1/502, Royal Greens Apartment,
Sirsi Road, Jaipur
2. Shyam Sunder Agarwal S/o Late Ram Niwas Agarwal,
Aged About 57 Years, 1/502, Royal Greens Apartment,
Sirsi Road, Jaipur
3. Neelam Devi Agarwal W/o Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Aged
About 55 Years, 1/502, Royal Greens Apartment, Sirsi
Road, Jaipur
4. Varsha Agarwal D/o Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Aged About
30 Years, 1/502, Royal Greens Apartment, Sirsi Road,
Jaipur
----Accused/Petitioners
Versus
1. Preeti Agarwal D/o Balmukund Agarwal, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 118A, Vikas Nagar, Near Kedia Palace,
Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Vasudev Agarwal S/o Ravi Kant Agarwal, Through The
Guardian Preeti Agarwal R/o 118 A, Vikas Nagar, Near
Kedia Palace, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur
----Respondents/Complainant
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kant Agarwal present in
person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
11/02/2021
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of
CrPC has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.10.2019
passed by learned Special Judge (Fake Currency), Jaipur City,
Jaipur whereby the appeal preferred by the
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-7979/2019]
respondents/complainants has partly been allowed and the matter
has been remanded back to the learned trial Court for decision
afresh.
The facts in brief are that the respondents/complainants filed
an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2012 (for brevity "the Act of 2012") which
came to be dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur vide its
order dated 14.12.2018. The appeal preferred by the
respondents/complainants against the aforesaid order has partly
been allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide its order
19.10.2019 which is subject-matter of challenge in this criminal
miscellaneous petition. The only contention made while assailing
the order impugned by the petitioner No.1, present in person, was
that the learned Appellate Court has relied upon so called report of
the Protection Officer with regard to domestic violence with her by
the husband; but, no such report of Protection Officer is available
on record and therefore, findings of the learned trial Court stand
vitiated. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned dated
19.10.2019 be quashed and set aside.
Heard the petitioner No.1 and perused the record.
Undoubtedly, the Appellate Court in its judgment impugned
refers report of the Protection Officer; but, even assuming that
statement of the petitioner No.1 as correct, a perusal of the
judgment impugned reveals that findings recorded therein are not
based on such report. Referring the statutory provision contended
in the Act of 2012 and the material on record, the learned
Appellate Court has remanded the matter back setting aside the
order of the learned trial Court dated 14.12.2018. The petitioner
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-7979/2019]
No.1 could not satisfy this Court that findings of the learned trial
Court are based on or are influenced in any manner by the so
called report of the Protection Officer.
In these circumstances, this criminal miscellaneous petition
is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/32
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
