Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishan Ladha vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 January, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4444/2018
1. Kishan Ladha S/o Ramesh Ladha, Aged About 23 Years,
B/c Maheshwari, R/o Mohanpura, Mandalgarh, Police
Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.
2. Ramesh Ladha S/o Mathura Lal Ladha, Aged About 53
Years, B/c Maheshwari, R/o Mohanpura, Mandalgarh,
Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.
3. Pushpa Devi W/o Ramesh Ladha, Aged About 50 Years,
B/c Maheshwari, R/o Mohanpura, Mandalgarh, Police
Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.
4. Annu Ladha D/o Ramesh Ladha, Aged About 21 Years, B/c
Maheshwari, R/o Mohanpura, Mandalgarh, Police Station
Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Staya Narain Sharma S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sharma,
Mohanpura, Mandalgarh, Police Station, District Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Mridul Jain
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rakesh Arora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
04/01/2022
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR
No.243 dated 13.10.2018 of Police Station Mandalgarh, District
Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 379,
120-B IPC.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-4444/2018]
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
daughter of the complainant-respondent No.2 solemnized
marriage with the petitioner no.1 as per her own free will. It is
further submitted that the daughter of complainant-respondent
No.2 is major and has not been abducted by the petitioners as
alleged in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has also submitted that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are
living in the same area as neighbors and the petitioner No.1 and
the daughter of the complainant-respondent No.2 were in
relationship from long time but as they solemnized marriage
against the will of the complainant-respondent No.2 and his family
members, this false FIR has been lodged. It is also submitted that
though in the impugned FIR it is stated that the alleged incident
took place on 11.10.2018 but the complaint was lodged on
13.10.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore,
submitted that the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 have vehemently
opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners and
submitted that from bare reading of the impugned FIR, it is clear
that the petitioners have committed offence punishable under
Sections 366, 379 and 120-B IPC, therefore, no case for quashing
the impugned FIR is made out.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s.
Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and Rupan
Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. V/s. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4444/2018]
reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 and in later decisions has held
that if from bare reading of the FIR, prima facie case is made out,
then FIR cannot be quashed.
Here in this case, from bare reading of the impugned FIR, it
is clear that prima facie case is made out, therefore, no case for
quashing the FIR is made out.
Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.
Stay petition is also dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
1-Arun/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
