Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Aaiji Bhargav vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 March, 2021

Bench: Sandeep Mehta

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                          JODHPUR


                 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3895/2020

Aaiji Bhargav S/o Shri Udaram, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste
Bhargav, R/o Ward No. 3, Vedo Ki Bagichi, Phalodi, District
Jodhpur.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.         State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.         Sunita Joshi D/o Sohanlal Joshi, Borunda, Thesil Bilara,
           District Jodhpur.
                                                                   ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr.Roshan Lal.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr.Gourav Singh, P.P.
For Complainant(s)          :     Mr.Vasudeo Charan.



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

                                  O R D E R

01/03/2021

The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner

accused Aaiji Bhargava for assailing the proceedings of F.I.R.

No.118/2020 registered at the Police Station Borunda, District

Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 354

I.P.C.

Succinctly stated the facts relevant and essential for disposal

of the case are noted hereinbelow.

The complainant respondent No.2 Sunita lodged a complaint

to the S.H.O. P.S. Borunda, District Jodhpur on 26.7.2020 against

the petitioner and his relatives alleging inter-alia that the

petitioner his relatives harassed and humiliated her in the

matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry. She would be

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-3895/2020]

abused. Numerous insinuation attempts were made to set her

afire. Her brother-in-law Jitendra Bhargav used to cast an evil eye

on her and would take liberties with her at every available

moment. She tolerated the ill behaviour of her husband other

matrimonial relatives with a heavy heart believing that the things

would improve with passage of time. Her father-in-law Uda Ram

expired by cancer on 24.6.2018. Imputations were made on the

complainant for death of Uda Ram, even though he had died from

an ailment. Her husband got appointed as a Teacher Gr.III

whereafter, she went to live with him at the place of posting. Her

husband would abuse her regularly and instigated her to commit

suicide so that he could remarry and get good dowry. Her husband

would suggest that she should leave him and go back to her

father's house. Thereafter, her husband was transferred to

Khokhasar, Barmer where also, he would often quarrel with her.

She was pushed down from the bike and as a result thereof, she

got a fracture on her hand. On 12.5.2019, she was dropped off to

her father's house. Her husband conveyed to her that he wanted

divorce as he was desirous of marrying another girl. She however

was not desirous of leaving the company of her husband. She

went to the matrimonial home but was not allowed to enter

therein. She requested the officers of Police Station Phalodi and

people of the community for help on which, she was taken to the

matrimonial home where, her in-laws started assaulting her. The

Police Officers of Police Station Phalodi ensured that she would be

allowed to stay in the house of her in-laws. On 17.5.2019, she

heard her sister-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and her

husband hatching a plan to kill her. Her husband tried to attack

her by a knife but she somehow escaped and reached the Police

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-3895/2020]

Station. Her husband also came there. A family lawyer was

creating pressure upon her to sign the documents of divorce but

she did not agree thereto. She came back to her father's house on

17.5.2019. She further alleged that her husband was bound down

by the Police to maintain peace and good behaviour for six months

and during that period, he hatched a conspiracy and got divorce

documents prepared without her knowledge. She was made to

believe that her husband's behaviour was improving. On

20.12.2019, she went to Khokhasar where, her husband was

posted. She met him in the school and to her utter shock, she was

told that the competent court had granted a decree of divorce on

31.7.2019. She went to Phalodi Court and tried to get a stay on

the divorce decree. Notices were sent to the accused but he did

not accept the same. On the basis of this report, F.I.R.

No.118/2020 came to be registered against the petitioner and his

relatives for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 354

I.P.C.

Shri Roshan Lal, learned counsel representing the petitioner

drew the Court's attention to the judgment and decree dated

31.7.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,

Phalodi, District Jodhpur in Civil Original Case No.28/2019 "Aaiji

Bhargav Vs. Smt.Sunita" whereby, the divorce application

submitted by the petitioner was accepted on the ground of cruelty.

He also drew the Court's attention to the mutual compromise filed

by the petitioner and the complainant in the court of the Judge,

Family Court, Phalodi on 7.1.2021 as per which, the parties have

decided to settle their disputes amicably. On these submissions,

Shri Roshal Lal sought acceptance of the petition under Section

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-3895/2020]

482 Cr.P.C. and quashing of the F.I.R. and all the proceedings

sought to be taken in furtherance thereof.

Per contra, Shri Vasudeo Charan learned counsel

representing the complainant respondent No.2 vehemently

opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel.

However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the

complainant has herself filed a joint application with the petitioner

in the court of the Judge, Family Court, Phalodi on 7.1.2021 in the

following terms:

"mijksDr vuoku izdj.k esa vizkFkhZ;k lqfurk tks"kh iq=h lksguyky] mez 25 o'kZ] tkfr & vxzoky HkkxZo] fuoklh & cks:Unk] rglhy & fcykM+k] ftyk & tks/kiqj dh vksj ls fuosnu gS fd %& 1- ;g gS fd eq> vizkFkhZ;k us ekuuh; U;k;ky; gktk esa mijksDr vuoku dk ,d izkFkZuk i= is"k fd;k gqvk gS] tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; gktk esa fopkjk/khu gSA 2- ;g gS fd mDr izdj.k esa eq> vizkFkhZ;k o izkFkhZ vkbZth HkkxZo ds e/; xkao ,oa lekt ds ekSftt yksxksa dh le>kbZ"k ls ,oa yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls vkil esa jkthukek gks x;k gS vkSj vc eSa mDr izkFkZuk i= dks vkxs pykuk ugha pkgrh gwa rFkk mDr izkFkZuk dk tfj;s jkthukek fuLrkj.k djokuk pkgrh gwaA 3- ;g gS fd izkFkhZ vkbZth HkkxZo us eq> vizkFkhZ;k lqfurk tks"kh dks Hkj.k iks'k.k isVs ,d eq"r 5]70][email protected]& v{kjs ikap yk[k lrj gtkj :i;s vnk dj fn;s gS] ftlesa ls izkFkhZ vkbZth HkkxZo us 5]00][email protected]& v{kjs ikap yk[k :i;s dk fMek.M Mªk¶V ftlds uEcj 13497 ;wdks cSad] "kk[kk & Qyksnh ls fnukad 06-01-2021 dk esjs uke lqfurk tks"kh ds uke ls ns; vki Jh vkbZth HkkxZo ds uke ls cukok;k gqvk] tks mDr izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk U;k;ky; gktk esa tek djok fn;k gS] tks oDr QSlyk mDr fMek.M Mªk¶V izkIr djus ds fy;s ikcUn jgwaxh] vkSj "ks'k jkf"k 70][email protected]& v{kjs lrj gtkj :i;s jksdMh gkFk [kpkZ gsrq eSus jksdM izkIr dj fy;s gSA 4- ;g gS fd eSaus ,d eqdnek lh-vkj- uEcj [email protected] iqfyl Fkkuk] cks:Unk esa izkFkhZ vkbZth HkkxZo o mlds ifjokj okyksa ds fo:) ntZ djok;k FkkA mDr eqdnek eSaus vkbZth HkkxZo }kjk nwljk fookg djus ij vkos"k esa vkdj ntZ djok;k FkkA mDr izdj.k ds vykok esjs }kjk vkbZth HkkxZo ds fo:) f"k{kk foHkkx esa vyx&vyx foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh gsrq izkFkZuk i= ns fn;s Fks rFkk vkbZth HkkxZo }kjk esjs o esjs ifjokjtuksa ds fo:) ,d eqdnek lh-vkj- uEcj [email protected] iqfyl Fkkuk] Qyksnh esa ntZ djok;k x;k FkkA vc geus lHkh izdj.kksa esa jkthukek dj fy;s gSA vr% ge i{kdkjku fdlh Hkh izdj.k dks vkxs pykuk ugha pkgrs gSa rFkk bl nLrkost dh :g ls lHkh izdj.kksa dks fuLrkfjr dj lekIr djrs gSA Hkfo'; esa ge i{kdkjku ds ,d nwljs ds thou esa dksbZ gLr{ksi ugha jgsxkA "

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-3895/2020]

The Judge, Family Court, Phalodi, passed the following order:

"07-01-2021 izkFkhZ vkbZth HkkxZo o vizkFkhZ;k lqfurk ds vf/koDrkx.k }kjk ckn le>kbZ"k yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls ;g jkthukek is"k fd;k x;kA i{kdkjku~ dh igpku muds vf/koDrkx.k }kjk djok;h xbZA jkthukek dh bckjr i{kdkjku~ dks i<+dj lquk;h xbZ] rks jkthukek lqu o le>dj LosPNk ls Lohdkj fd;k x;k] tks jkthukek ckn lquokbZ i{kdkjku~ ds e/; rLnhd dj vfHkys[k ij fy;k tkrk gSA jkthukek "kkfey i=koyh jgsA " In this view of the matter and considering the ratio of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ruchi Agarwal

Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors. reported in (2005)3 SCC

299, I am of the opinion that allowing investigation of the

impugned F.I.R. to be continued in this matter would be nothing

short of a gross abuse of the process of law and thus, further

proceedings thereof deserve to be quashed.

Accordingly, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby

allowed. The impugned F.I.R. No.118/2020 registered at the Police

Station Borunda, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections

498A, 406, 323 and 354 I.P.C. and all proceedings sought to be

taken thereunder are hereby quashed.