Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kajal vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2489/2022
Kajal W/o Late Shri Devendra Sankhla, Aged About 28 Years, D/
o Jai Singh Gehlot, B/c Mali, R/o 122, Hudko Quarter, Kirti Nagar,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Shiv Singh S/o Shri Chhinji Sankhla, Aged About 73
Years, R/o Jaloriyo Ka Bas, Ramchowk, Khaniyon Ki Gali,
Police Thana Nagori Gate, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Adv. Assisted
by Mr. Mayank Roy
For Respondents : Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.
Mr. Gokulesh Bohra
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 15/12/2022
Pronounced on 20/12/2022
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this criminal misc.
petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed and the
proceeding pending before the learned Session Judge, District
and Session Judge, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Case No.
15/2019 (New Session Case No. 136/2019) in pursuance to
FIR bearing no. 144/2021 dated 01.12.2016 lodged at Police
Station Nagori Gate, Jodhpur may kindly be quashed.
Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit, just and proper, may also be passed in favour of
the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioner, are that the impugned FIR bearing no.
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-2489/2022]
144/2016 came be to lodged against the petitioner and other
persons on 01.12.2016, alleging therein that the complainant's
son Devendra was married to the petitioner. That the mother-in-
law was suffering from ill health, yet the petitioner refused to tend
to her and subsequently she (mother-in-law) passed away.
2.1 That subsequently, the petitioner left her matrimonial home
and returned to her paternal home. As per the complainant, the
husband (complainant's son) went to bring her back from her
paternal home, but was mishandled and ill-treated by them, and
that a false case was filed against the husband and his family,
alleging harassment owing to demands of dowry as well. That on
01.12.2016, at about 09:30 a.m. Devendra (petitioner's husband)
entered his room, and when he did not return, for quite a while,
the door was broken and he was found to have died by suicide, by
hanging.
2.2 In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the impugned F.I.R. came
to be lodged against the present petitioner and other accused
persons for the offences under Sections 306/34 and 120-B IPC.
That a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner on
30.03.2019, for the aforesaid offences.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was in
fact the petitioner who suffered cruelty and the harassment at the
hands of the deceased-husband and her in-laws, and an F.I.R.
bearing no. 168/2016 was also lodged against them on
14.10.2016, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323
IPC at Mahila Thana, Jodhpur (East). That the said F.I.R. clearly
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-2489/2022]
precedes the impugned F.I.R. which was alleged to be a counter
blast.
3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the this case and that the ingredients for
the offence under Section 306 are not made out against the
petitioner. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gangula
Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750.
3.2 Learned counsel also submitted that there is nothing on
record, so as to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC and it
cannot be said that the petitioner in any way whatsoever
instigated the deceased-victim (husband) or abetted his death by
suicide. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgments
rendered by this Hon'ble Court in 2016 (2) Cr.L.R. Raj. 549,
2013 (3) Cr.L.R. Raj. 1548, 2013 (4) Cr.L.R. Raj. 1924,
2013 (1) Cr.L.R. Raj 12 and 2007 (1) Cr.L.R. Raj. 767.
3.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
there is a lack of wilful conduct on the part of the petitioner, and
merely that she was the wife of the deceased, and the alleged
harassment would not suffice to constitute an offence under
Section 306 IPC. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mahendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp (3) SCC
731 and Bhagwan Dass v. Kartar Singh (Criminal Appeal No.
720/2007, decided on 14.05.2007).
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned
counsel for the private respondent opposed the petition and
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-2489/2022]
submitted that looking into the overall facts and circumstances of
the present case, more particularly the stage of the instant case,
the petitioner does not deserve the indulgence by this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the
record of the case as well as the judgments cited at the Bar.
6. This Court, at the outset, observes that vide the order dated
13.08.2019, in Sessions Case No. 15/2019 (136/2019), passed by
the learned Court below, the case has been committed to the
competent Court.
7. This Court further observes that the petitioner essentially
prays for the quashing of the FIR and all the proceedings
emanating therefrom.
8. This Court, looking into the factual matrix of the case and
the stage thereof, does not find the present case to be falling
within the parameters for quashing of the FIR, as laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Ch.Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.
9. In view of the above, this Court also finds that the case laws
cited by learned counsel for the petitioner does not render any
assistance to the petitioner's case at hand.
10. Resultantly, the present petition fails and the same is hereby
dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
Skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
