Kalpesh Bohra vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 17616 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5741/2019

1. Kalpesh Bohra S/o Late Sh. Chainsukh Bohra, Aged About 39 Years, R/o B-89, Shastri Nagar, Opposite Solanki Cinema, Bhilwara.

2. Smt. Neela Devi W/o Late Chainsukh Bohra, Aged About 58 Years, R/o B-89, Shastri Nagar, Opposite Solanki Cinema, Bhilwara.

3. Miss Apeksha D/o Late Sh. Chiansukh Bohra, Aged About 33 Years, R/o B-89, Shastri Nagar, Opposite Solanki Cinema, Bhilwara.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

2. Smt. Priya W/o Kalpesh Bohra D/o Bhanwar Lal Dak, R/o Shastri Nagar, Opposite Solanki Talkies, Bhilwara. At present-1 R1,Near Dungla House,Hiran Magri Sector No.- 5, Udaipur. Second Address- Priya Jain W/o Dharmendra Jain, R/o Post- Hurda, Tehsil-Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. R.S. Mankad
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

24/11/2021

The present criminal misc. petition has been filed against the

order dated 17.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate (Rent Tribunal), Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 12/2019

whereby, the learned trial court dismissed the application

preferred by the petitioners under Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                           (2 of 3)                      [CRLMP-5741/2019]



        Learned       counsel    for     the     petitioner          submits      that   the

complainant, after having solemnized marriage with petitioner

No.1, was happily residing at petitioner's house i.e. her

matrimonial home, therefore, there was no question of harassing

her for dowry. He further submits that the complainant was a

student of Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur from the year

2003-2005 and thereafter, she was working as a Teacher in the

same University from the year 2013-2016. He submits that if she

was met with cruelty, there was no question that she would have

undertaken her studies and gone for teaching in the University. In

the circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the

attendance registers of Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur

from the year 2003-2005 and 2013-2016 may be summoned.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the order dated 17.09.2019.

It is an admitted fact that there is a marital discord between

petitioner No.1 and the complainant for which the petitioners are

facing trial under Section 498-A of IPC. As far as the application

preferred for summoning the attendance registers of the

University is concerned, the same is of little relevance as the

ground of cruelty alleged in the present case has no bearing on

the documents required from the University.

Learned trial court has rightly observed that for deciding the

point of cruelty, there is no relevance of the documents which are

required to be summoned as mentioned in the application

preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, the observation made by

the trial court while deciding the application appears to be just

and reasonable.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5741/2019]

In view of the discussions made above, no interference in the

present case is warranted by this Court. The petition is therefore,

dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

12-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)