Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khuman Kanwar And Anr vs State And Anr on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 353/2017
1. Khuman Kanwar W/o Lal Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o
Gundoj, Presently Keshariyaji, District Udaipur.
2. Neelam Kanwar D/o Lal Singh, W/o Narpat Singh, By
Caste Rajput, R/o Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Saroj Kanwar @ Anju, W/o Shri Govind Singh, D/o
Shri Narayan Singh Ranawat, By Caste Rajput, R/o
Khindava Padarla, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
Mr. Rakesh Arora
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
12/09/2022
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is
similar to the misc. petition of husband i.e. Lal Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1289/2014),
which has been allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
09.12.2015. Relevant para of the order reads as follows :-
"As per the admitted allegations of the complainant in the
detailed FIR, she was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial
house in December 2012. She received the notices of the
divorce petition and filed a reply thereto in September 2013.
However, in the reply there is a pertinent absence of
allegations against the matrimonial relatives other than the
husband regarding them having harassed or maltreated the
complainant on account of demand of dowry or even otherwise.
(Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 09:03:14 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-353/2017]
The allegations of demand of dowry, harassment,
humiliation and cruelty are limited against the husband alone.
There is not a whisper of allegation in the entire reply that the
complainant was forcibly got aborted at her matrimonial
home. Even in the entire FIR, so far as the petitioner is
concerned, absolutely vague and general allegations have
been levelled against him by the complainant. The allegations
regarding demand of dowry, beating etc. are specifically
attributed to the husband, the mother in law and the sister in
law. Thus, keeping in view the principles enshrined in the
above-referred judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, this Court is of the firm opinion that ex-facie,
continuance of the proceedings of the impugned FIR against
the petitioner is not at all justified as the same clearly
amounts to an abuse of the process of law. "
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations
against present petitioners (who are mother-in-law and sister-in-
law respectively of the complainant), are on similar footing.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that sister-in-law is a far
relation but could not point out as to if she was living apart or
married.
On carefully perusing impugned FIR, this Court finds that
the father-in-law was living apart as he was a government
servant, employed in Devsthan Department of Government of
Rajasthan and was posted outside District Pali or almost the
entire period during which the complainant stayed in the
matrimonial home. The Hon`ble Court, however, in the
aforequoted order has clearly concluded that the allegations
regarding demand of dowry, beating etc. are specifically
(Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 09:03:14 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-353/2017]
attributed to the husband, the mother in law and the sister in
law. Since, Hon`ble Court has clearly distinguished the role of
husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, thus, no case for
interference is made out.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that charge-sheet has
been filed against the petitioners herein and Govind Singh
(husband of complainant). The factual report produced by
learned PP is taken on record. The misc. petition is dismissed.
The respondent-State, however, shall be required to comply with
provisions of Section 41A Cr. P.C.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
94-Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
