Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganpat Ram vs Laxmi Choudhary on 17 November, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1276/2022
1. Ganpat Ram S/o Likhma Ram, Aged About 50 Years,
Inside Narsingh Dadha Pole, Baiji Ka Talab, Jodhpur.
2. Kum. Bhawna D/o Ganpat Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Inside Narsingh Dadha Pole, Baiji Ka Talab, Jodhpur.
3. Kum. Teena D/o Ganpat Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Inside Narsingh Dadha Pole, Baiji Ka Talab, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Laxmi Choudhary W/o Chetan Jyani, Aged About 38
Years, Infront Of Woman P.s., Ratanada, Jodhpur.
Permanent R/o Inside Narsingh Dadha Pole, Baiji Ka
Talab, Jodhpur.
2. Kum Disha D/o Chetan Jyani, B/c Their Mother Laxmi
Choudhary W/o Chetan Jyani, R/o Infront Of Woman P.s.,
Ratanada, Jodhpur. Permanent R/o Inside Narsingh Dadha
Pole, Baiji Ka Talab, Jodhpur.
3. Tejesh S/o Chetan Jyani, Aged About 12 Years, B/c Their
Mother Laxmi Choudhary W/o Chetan Jyani, R/o Infront
Of Woman P.s., Ratanada, Jodhpur. Permanent R/o Inside
Narsingh Dadha Pole, Baiji Ka Talab, Jodhpur.
4. Kum. Priyanka D/o Chetan Jyani, Aged About 6 Years, B/c
Their Mother Laxmi Choudhary W/o Chetan Jyani, R/o
Infront Of Woman P.s., Ratanada, Jodhpur. Permanent R/o
Inside Narsingh Dadha Pole, Baiji Ka Talab, Jodhpur.
5. State, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondents : Mr. Salim Khan Mehar, P.P.
Mr. Chetan Jyani
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 14/11/2022
Pronounced on 17/11/2022
(2 of 5) [CRLR-1276/2022]
1. This Revision Petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that
the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated
12.10.2022 passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge
(Woman Atrocities Cses), Jodhpur, (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal No.
80/2022 and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur
City on dated 28.06.2022 in Criminal Misc. Application No.
33/2020 N.C.V. No. 15/2020 may kindly be set aside and the
name of the petitioners may deleted from the proceeding u/S 12
& 23 Domestic Violence Act and in alternatively any other
appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court thinks just and proper
looking to the circumstances of the case may be passed in
favour of the petitioners."
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioners are that an application under Section
12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 was preferred by the respondent no. 1 before the Judicial
Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, Jodhpur, and that the
notices of the said application was issued against the petitioners
to which reply was filed on behalf of them before the learned
Court. In the said application, it was averred that the respondent
no. 1 was responding with the petitioners after marriage, and that
she was harassed with demands of dowry; although the
respondents were not present in the learned Court below, since a
reply was filed on their behalf, the learned Court below passed an
order ex-parte.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on
behalf of Ganpat Ram, petitioner no.1, an application was
preferred before the concerned Magistrate stating that petitioners
no. 2 and 3, Kumari Bhawna and Kumari Teena, are his
(3 of 5) [CRLR-1276/2022]
unmarried daughers, were not residing in Jodhpur City and in fact
did not reside with the respondent no. 1 at any point in time, yet
were made party to the case with the sole intent of harassment.
And that, an application was made to this effect before the learned
Court below, and that despite the same being brought to the
notice of the Court below, the said application was dismissed vide
order dated 28.06.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that
Chetan Jyani, the husband of the respondent no. 1, used to harass
his father and that an F.I.R. bearing No. 27/2020 was registered
against him at Police Station Sadar Bazaar, Jodhpur. And that after
marriage the respondent no. 1 and her husband were residing at a
residence separate than that the other family members, at an
apartment situated at Narsingh Dadha, Jodhpur.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
the respondent no. 1 along with her husband did not deposit the
dues towards their electricity charges before the Electricity
Department and therefore, their electricity connection was cut, in
accordance with the law; being aggrieved by the same, with the
object that the electricity connection be restored, they filed the
aforesaid application under the Act of 2005 against Smt. Leela,
the wife of the petitioner no. 1, and her father Raghunath Das,
aged about 90 years.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforesaid
submissions, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyamlal Devda & Ors. v.
(4 of 5) [CRLR-1276/2022]
Parimala, (Criminal Appeal No. 141/2020, decided on
22.01.2020).
7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel for the private respondents opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the learned
Courts below has rightly passed the orders dated, 28.06.2022 and
12.10.2022, after looking into the overall facts and circumstances
of the present case, and the evidences placed on the record before
it. And that, the simple fact that the petitioners and respondents
are close family members, Smt. Leela being the sister in law, Shri
Ganpat, the petitioner no. 1 being the brother in law, and the
petitioners 2 and 3, their daughters and nieces; of the respondent
no. 1.
8. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the
record of the case and the judgment cited at the Bar.
9. This Court observes that the learned Court below, vide order
dated 28.06.2022, in an application preferred before it to remove
the names of the petitioners from the proceedings initiated in
pursuance of the F.I.R. dated 27/2020, held that the definition of
shared household under Section 2 (s) of the Act of 2005, is of a
wide ambit and would therefore include the present petitioners,
being close family members of the respondent no. 1. And that the
averments made with regard to the petitioners not residing with
the respondent no. 1 and her children, were unsubstantiated with
any evidence and therefore rightly rejected by the learned Court
below.
(5 of 5) [CRLR-1276/2022]
10. This Court further observes that the learned Appellate Court
below, vide order dated 12.10.2022, has dealt with the averments
made on behalf of the petitioners herein, that the petitioners no. 2
and 3 were residing outside their home, in hostels at Ahmedabad,
to prepare for certain competitive examinations. And that the
application preferred by the respondent no. 1 is a motivated
litigation, owing to disconnection of their electricity connection at
their home. However, the learned Appellate Court, looking to the
stage of the proceedings, did not accept the contentions made on
behalf of the petitioners, finding that it would not meet the ends of
justice.
11. This Court finds that the case law cited on behalf of the
petitioners, does not render any assistance to their case.
12. On a conjoint consideration of the concurrent findings of the
learned Courts below, looking into the stage of the criminal
proceedings, and the close proximity of the familial relations
between the petitioners and the respondent no. 1; being the
brother-in-law and nieces i.e. close kin related by marriage, this
Court does not find a case, warranting its interference, to be made
out.
13. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present petition
fails, and the same is hereby dismissed with the liberty to the
petitioners to raise all issues at the appropriate stage, strictly in
accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
Skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
