Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naveen Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 July, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 39/2021
Naveen Kumar S/o Shri Srivallabh, Aged About 40 Years, By
Caste Shrimali Brahmin, R/o Basant Vihar, Opposite Bangad
College, Pali (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Manisha @ Pinki W/o Shri Naveen Kumar Dave D/o Shri
Pradeep Dave, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Chhoti Brahampuri,
District Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kanti Lal Thakur &
Mr. Mool Singh Panwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
Mr. Chetan Prakash Soni
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
Reserved on 08/07/2021
Pronounced on 27/07/2021
1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant
caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court,
for the safety of all concerned.
2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this
misc. petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed and impugned orders dated 18.11.2020
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal
Revision No.24/2018 (C.I.S. No.24/2018) titled as
"Naveen Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan" as well as
(Downloaded on 27/07/2021 at 08:54:42 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-39/2021]
dated 30.04.2018 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal Original Case
No.280/2016 titled as "State of Rajasthan Vs.
Naveen Kumar" may kindly be quashed and set aside
and the application under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. filed
by the petitioner may kindly be allowed as prayed
for".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
cognizance against the present petitioner has been taken by the
learned court below unlawfully, as the allegations contained in the
written report dated 01.06.2016 submitted before the SHO, Police
Station, Mahila Thana, District Sirohi regarding the offences under
Sections 498-A, 406 & 323 IPC, are not correct.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present
petitioner under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC before the learned
trial court on 05.09.2016, and the cognizance was taken by the
learned trial court on the same day.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 468
Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court, while alleging that the
complainant had come to her parents' house for delivery in the
month of February 2013, and thereafter, she gave birth to a
female child on 13.03.2013, and since then, she was residing at
her parents' house. Learned counsel further submitted that the
maximum period of limitation for taking cognizance under
Sections 498-A and 406 IPC is three years, as per the provisions
of Section 468 Cr.P.C.; however, after expiry of the said period of
limitation, the present false report has been instituted, even when
it was barred by limitation.
(Downloaded on 27/07/2021 at 08:54:42 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-39/2021]
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, submitted that the
learned trial court has wrongly declined to entertain the
application under Section 468 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.
7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amarendu Jyoti & Ors. Vs. State
of Chhatisgarh & Ors., reported in (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 719;
and the judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Manish
Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,
reported in 2015(4) Criminal Court Cases 375 (Raj.) and;
Smt. Sharmishtha Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Criminal Misc. Petition No.491/2009, decided on 05.04.2013).
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as
learned counsel for the complainant oppose the petition.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that it was a continuous
offence, and therefore, there is no question of any interference by
this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant relied upon
the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arun Vyas Vs. Anita Vyas, reported in 1999 LawSuit (SC)
637.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the
matrimonial offence, as narrated in the FIR, reflects a continuous
offence, and therefore, the impugned orders have been rightly
passed by the learned courts below.
12. The judgments cited at Bar by learned counsel for the
petitioner do not apply in the present case.
(Downloaded on 27/07/2021 at 08:54:42 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-39/2021]
13. In view of the above, no case is made out for making any
interference by this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
14. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications also stand dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
