Krishan vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2000 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 456/2022

1. Krishan S/o Shri Girdhari Lal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Pokran, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

2. Pushpa W/o Shri Krishan, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Pokran, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

3. Jagdish S/o Shr Krishan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Pokran, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

4. Moti Lal S/o Shri Krishan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Pokran, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

5. Smt. Dariya W/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Pokran, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

6. Seema W/o Shri Moti Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Pokran, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

7. Lalita D/o Shri Krishan, Aged About 27 Years, W/o Jagdish, R/o Jhalamand Circle, Jodhpur.

8. Puna D/o Shri Krishan, Aged About 35 Years, W/o Shri Ramesh, R/o Raika Bagh, Jodhpur.

9. Dhau D/o Shri Krishan, Aged About 31 Years, W/o Shri Mukesh, R/o Sodala, Jaipur.

10. Rana Ram S/o Shri Krishan, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Pokran, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Chandra Kalla D/o Shri Mangi Lal, R/o Jaimalsar, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

05/02/2022

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-456/2022]

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR

No.17/2022 of Police Station Mahila Thana Bikaner, District

Bikaner.

The said FIR has been lodged by the complainant-

respondent No.2, alleging that her marriage was solemanized with

respondent No.10 on 25.11.2020 and at that time, her father gave

several gifts as stridhan, however, the petitioners were not

satisfied with the said gifts and treated the complainant with

cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Allegations regarding

assault and harassment have also been levelled in the FIR. It is

also specifically stated in the FIR that the petitioners have also

refused to return the stridhan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

complainant has levelled false allegations against the brothers of

the petitioner No.10 and their wives as well as the sisters of the

petitioner No.10. It is also submitted that the sisters of the

petitioner No.10 are married and residing at Jaipur and Jodhpur

and therefore, it is difficult to comprehend that they have

demanded dowry from the complainant. It is also submitted that

the brothers of the petitioner No.10 and their wives are not in any

manner involved in the alleged commission of crime but they have

falsely been implicated. It is also submitted that the petitioner

No.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the petitioner No.10 and

they never demanded any dowry from the respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the

petitioner No.10 never demanded any dowry from the respondent

No.2 and the allegations levelled against him in the impugned FIR

are false.

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-456/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a

matter of fact there are some differences between the petitioner

No.10 and the respondent No.2, however, the respondent No.2

has lodged this false FIR and implicated other relatives of the

petitioner No.10.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

tendency in implicating the relatives in matrimonial cases is going

on, therefore, the impugned FIR may be quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that as a matter of fact

the impugned FIR was lodged on 12.01.2022 and the police are

thoroughly investigating into the allegations levelled in the

impugned FIR, however have not reached to any conclusion as

yet. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the

police are thoroughly investigating into the allegations levelled

against the petitioners in the impugned FIR and after ascertaining

the role of each of the petitioners, will form its opinion to this

effect. Learned Public Prosecutor has therefore argued that at this

stage, no interference is called for in the impugned FIR.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused

the impugned FIR.

The complainant in the impugned FIR has levelled allegations

against all the petitioners that they demanded dowry and

assaulted her, however no role of each of the petitioners has been

specified but this itself cannot be a ground to quash the impugned

FIR.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Criminal Appeal

No.122 of 2022 decided on 24.01.2022 while dealing with similar

type of situation has held as under :

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-456/2022]

"In this backdrop, the finding of the High Court to the effect that there is no specific allegation against the second and third respondents or that, as the mother and sister of the bridegroom, they would not be either beneficiaries or have a direct link with the perpetrators of the crime is not based on cognet material or a reading of the FIR. It is well-settled that at the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, the allegations in the FIR must be read as they stand and it is only if on the face of the allegations that no offence, as alleged, has been made out, that the Court may be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to quash. The parameters of the jurisdiction under Section 482 have been reiterated in a consistent line of authorities and, at this stage, it may be material to refer to the recent decision of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 15 April 2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.27511 of 2018."

I am of the opinion that the investigation into the impugned

FIR is at initial stage and police are required to investigate into the

allegations thoroughly and whether the brothers of the petitioner

No.10, their wives and parents as well as the sisters of the

petitioner No.10 are involved in commission of crime or not is to

be assessed by the Investigating Officer after thorough

investigation into the allegations and thereafter, only a final

conclusion can be drawn.

It is true that the tendency of implicating the relatives in a

matrimonial dispute is going on but that itself cannot be a ground

of quashing an FIR when allegations are levelled against the

relatives also.

As observed earlier, the Investigating Officer is required to

carefully scrutinize the role of each of the persons named in the

impugned FIR and if it is found that the relatives have falsely been

implicated in the complaint, then the police may record finding of

this effect and may exonerate them.

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-456/2022]

In view of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to

interfere in this criminal misc. petition at this stage, hence, the

same is disposed of with the above observations.

The factual report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

be taken on record.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 6-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)