Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Krishan Kumar And Anr vs State And Anr on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 497/2013
Krishan Kumar And Anr.
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Anr.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Pravin Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, Addl.GA
Mr. DLR Vyas
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 08/09/2022
Pronounced on 13/09/2022
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred claiming the following reliefs: -
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed on
behalf of the petitioner that this misc. petition may kindly be
allowed and orders impugned dated 18.02.2013 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge Phalodi and order dated
11.06.2012 passed by learned ACJM, Phalodi may kindly be
quashed and set aside".
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by
Mr.Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pravin Vyas,
appearing on behalf of the petitioners, are that the respondent
No.2 herein filed a complaint before the learned court below,
which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation
to Police Station, Phalodi. In the said complaint, allegations were
levelled against seven persons, including the present petitioners.
It was alleged in the said complaint, that the marriage of the
complainant/respondent no.2 was solemnized with an accused
Hitesh s/o Ranu Lal on 23.11.2009, and that, at the time of
(Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:34:22 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-497/2013]
marriage, her parents gave sufficient dowry; however, the
petitioners and other accused persons, not being satisfied with the
said dowry, began to harass the complainant, and subjected her to
physical and mental cruelty. It was further alleged that the
accused-Hitesh (husband) was having illicit relations with one
Jaya, and threatened the complainant to desert her, if additional
dowry was not given.
3. On the basis of the above, an FIR bearing No. 71/2012 was
registered at Police Station, Phalodi, for the offences under
Section 498A, 406 & 323 IPC. The police after investigation, found
that no case was made out against the present petitioners, while a
charge-sheet was filed under Sections 498A, 406 & 323 IPC
against Ranulal, Smt. Soni Devi, Ajay, Smt.Santosh and Hitesh.
However, since the said Hitesh, who is husband of the
complainant/respondent No.2 was absconding, therefore,
proceedings against him under Section 299 Cr.P.C. were initiated.
4. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent No.2 filed an
application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial
Court, and the learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.06.2012,
allowed the said application, while taking cognizance against the
present-petitioners under Section 498A, 406, 306 and 120B IPC.
The said cognizance order, upon being challenged before the
learned revisional court by filing a criminal revision, was upheld
vide the impugned order dated 18.02.2013, while dismissing the
said criminal revision preferred by the present petitioners.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the present-petitioners were residing separately with their family
in Vadodara, Gujarat, and therefore, the allegation levelled against
(Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:34:22 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-497/2013]
them by the complainant that they caused harassment to the
complainant, is without any substance.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that on 07.04.2011, the statement of the complainant/respondent
no.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the concerned
investigating officer, wherein she has stated that the present
petitioners were residing at Vadodara, Gujarat. Thus, as per
learned Senior Counsel, the leaned court below failed to
appreciate the said material aspect, while passing the impugned
order of cognizance.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted
that the complainant/respondent no.2 has implicated the whole
family of her husband, with a view to cause undue hardship and
harassment, that too, without there being any justification for the
same.
8. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of the submissions so
made, placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam &
Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2022) 6 SCC 599, Mirza Iqbal
@ Golu & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. AIR 2022
SC 69 and Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Anr (2012) 10 SCC 741.
9. On other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate as
well as learned counsel for complainant opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the learned
courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders after
taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances
(Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 11:34:22 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-497/2013]
of the case, and the evidences placed on record, to the extent
necessary at the stage of the cognizance.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, along with the judgments cited at the Bar.
11. This Court finds that at the stage of cognizance, what is
required of the concerned Court is to consider whether any prima
facie case, against the accused, is found to be made out or not,
and a detailed analysis and appreciation of the evidence, are
subject matter of trial.
12. This Court also finds that the learned courts below have duly
considered the case, and such due consideration and appreciation
owing to the stage of the case, which is reflected in the well
reasoned impugned orders passed by the learned courts below, do
not merit any interference by this Court.
13. The judgments cited by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner do not render any assistance to the case of the
petitioner.
14. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal
infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts
below, so as to warrant any interference therein.
15. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However,
the petitioners shall be at liberty to take up all their legal issues at
the appropriate stage before the learned trial court. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
