Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balwan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2377/2022
1. Balwan Singh S/o Sh. Mange Ram, Aged About 52 Years,
R/o Dadri Gaid, Dhana Road, Laksmi Nagar, Bhiwani, P.s.
Industries Area Bhiwani, Dist. Bhiwani, Hariyana (Father
In Law).
2. Smt. Rajbala W/o Sh. Balwan Singh, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Dadri Gaid, Dhana Road, Laksmi Nagar,
Bhiwani, P.s. Industries Area Bhiwani, Dist. Bhiwani,
Hariyana (Mother In Law).
3. Sandeep S/o Sh. Balwan Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Dadri Gaid, Dhana Road, Laksmi Nagar, Bhiwani, P.s.
Industries Area Bhiwani, Dist. Bhiwani, Hariyana (Brother
In Law).
4. Smt. Anju W/o Sh. Sandeep, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Dadri Gaid, Dhana Road, Laksmi Nagar, Bhiwani, P.s.
Industries Area Bhiwani, Dist. Bhiwani, Hariyana (Sister
In Law).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Monika W/o Sh. Shakti Singh, D/o Sh. Hawa Singh,
R/o Sasural Road, Dadri Gate, Lakshmi Nagar, Bhiwani,
Hariyana, Presently R/o Kharnal, Nagaur, P.s. Sadar
Nagaur, Nagaur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
Mr. Mukesh Mehriya
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
05/05/2022
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code')
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-2377/2022]
has been preferred for challenging the FIR No.211 dated
19.10.2021, registered against the petitioners for offences under
Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in the Police Station, Sadar,
Nagaur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that on perusal of
the FIR, no offence for demand of dowry is made out and the
complainant has vindictively en-roped all the family members of
her in-laws including petitioner No.1 and 3, who are government
servants in State of Haryana, only in order to harass them. It was
also submitted that petitioner No.3 is a physically challenged
person.
3. While challenging the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioners
highlighted that all the dowry articles including the car has been
returned back to the complainant.
4. While contending that complainant Monika was residing
separately with her husband Shakti Singh in Daadri, he argued
that all the family members of the complainant's husband residing
separately, have been alleged to be involved in demand of dowry
though they never asked for dowry, much less harassing her.
5. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam &
Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2022 SCC Online SC 162] and
submitted that on the basis of principles enunciated in this case,
the FIR in question deserves to be quashed.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that
the investigation in the matter is over and after thorough
investigation, the Investigating Officer has found the offences
under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code to have
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-2377/2022]
been made out against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 so also against
complainant's husband, namely, Shakti Singh. He prayed that the
FIR in question and investigation does not call for any interference
as there is enough evidence showing that the above referred
petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and complainant's husband have been
harassing her by asking for dowry, in spite of the fact that huge
dowry was given by the complainant's family.
7. Mr. Mehriya, learned counsel appearing for the complainant,
highlighted a striking fact that immediately before the marriage,
complainant's father sent a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- through RTGS to
Jagmohan Motors Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of a vehicle and
surprisingly, the vehicle was purchased in the name of Sandeep,
complainant's brother-in-law. That apart, the registration
certificate shows that complainant's mother-in-law, Rajbala has
been shown as a nominee.
8. While raising serious doubt on petitioners' conduct, learned
counsel submitted that there was no reason for the petitioners to
buy a car in the name of Sandeep Kumar (complainant's brother-
in-law) and not in the name of complainant or her husband.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the firm view
that after conducting thorough investigation, the Investigating
Officer has collected enough evidence evincing a prima-facie case
to be made out against the accused persons.
10. The evidence collected by the Investigating Officer cannot be
ignored by this Court and even the contents of the FIR prima-facie
indicate commission of offences under Sections 498A and 406 of
the Indian Penal Code by the accused persons.
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-2377/2022]
11. Moreso, considering the submissions made by learned
counsel for the complainant that cash, that was given during the
wedding and the jewellery that was gifted, has not been recovered
and further because of the fact that the car in question had been
purchased in the name of petitioner No.3 - Sandeep Kumar in
spite of the fact that the amount was transferred by the
complainant's father, this Court is of the view that conduct of the
petitioner Nos.1 to 3 has been suspicious and the accusation made
by the complainant needs to be gone into and the case to be tried
by the competent Court.
12. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code is,
therefore, dismissed.
13. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
14. Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove
are prima-facie opinion of this Court to the extent necessary for
decision of the present petition seeking quashment of the FIR in
question. The same shall not be construed to be findings of this
Court about petitioners' guilt or commission of the offences
alleged.
15. The trial Court shall be free to take its independent view of
the matter on the basis of ocular and oral evidence to be led by
the parties at the appropriate stage.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
229-skm/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
