Sarita vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 15669 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5373/2021

1. Sarita D/o Ramgopal, Aged About 19 Years, Budin, Mahendragarh, Haryana.

2. Chandrapal S/o Rajveer, Aged About 22 Years, Bohra Ki Dhani, Sohla, Mahendragarh, Haryana.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State, Through The Learned Pp

2. Sho, P.s. Bhaleri, Dist. Churu, Rajasthan.

3. Pappu Dan S/o Mul Dan, Nenasar Tehsil Sardarshahar, Dist. Churu (Raj.).

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Dinesh Kumar Ojha
For State                     :    Mr. Gourav Singh, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

                                       Order

18/10/2021

1. Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition seeking

quashing of F.I.R. No.103/2021 registered at Police Station Bhaleri

District Churu (Raj.).

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that Petitioner

Nos.1 & 2 left on their own free will on 05.07.2021. Thereafter,

they approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court at

Chandigarh by filing petition seeking protection which was allowed

by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 08.07.2021. It is also

contended that the present F.I.R. was lodged on 13.07.2021 by

father-in-law of Petitioner No.1.

3. It is further contended that Petitioners No.1 & 2 are living in

live-in-relationship and have already obtained an order of

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5373/2021]

protection from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The

continuation of the proceedings would tantamount to the abuse of

the process of Court.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the Criminal Misc.

Petition. It is contended that Petitioner No.1 is a married lady who

left her matrimonial home and has fled with Petitioner No.2 and

has taken away cash and jewellery, which is evident from the

perusal of the F.I.R. It is also contended that F.I.R. discloses

commission of a cognizable offence and Courts cannot stall the

investigation, more particularly when it is admitted that Petitioner

No.1 is a married lady and Petitioner No. 2 has taken her away.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Petitioner No.1 is married and has not obtained any decree

of divorce from her husband. The F.I.R. discloses commission of a

cognizable offence.

7. The Apex Court in the case of "Dineshbhai Chandubhai

Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2018 (3) SCC Page 106."

has held that the High Court at this stage could not appreciate the

evidence nor could draw its own inferences and such job is vested

with the Investigating Authority. The Apex Court further observed

that if the FIR disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable

offence, High Court should stay its hand and allow the

investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth

the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the

Code. The Apex Court in the case of M/s Niharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

(Criminal Appeal No.330/2021) decided on 13.04.2021 has held

that when a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged

accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5373/2021]

Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the

FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and it is not

required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a

cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the

investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the

FIR. Apex Court has further observed that power under Section

482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires

the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more

diligent duty on the Court.

8. In view of the above judgment, this Court does not find it a

case where the proceedings requires to be quashed, more

particularly, the F.I.R. discloses commission of a cognizable

offence, merely because petitioners have obtained protection

order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court that does not

debar the Police from investigating the cognizable offence.

9. No ground is made out for entertaining the present Criminal

Misc. Petition.

10. Criminal Misc. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Stay

application stands disposed.

11. Since, petitioners have obtained protection order from the

Punjab and Haryana High Court, they would be free to move a

representation before the concerned Superintendent of Police who

shall consider the same on its own merit.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

Amit/Nikhil/36

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)