Meghraj S/O Shri Babu Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6042 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4368/2022

1.      Meghraj S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
        Piloda, P.s. Piloda, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj).
2.      Rishiraj S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
        Piloda, P.s. Piloda, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj).
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2.      Hari Gopal S/o Shri Ghoodmal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
        Village   Khidarpur, Piloda, P.s.             Piloda, District Sawai
        Madhopur (Raj).
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Anurag Sharma
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP
                               Mr. Javed Khan, Mr. Jaideep Malik
                               Mr. Palash Gupta



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

                                    Order

Judgment reserved on                   :               29/08/2022
Date of Pronouncement                  :               06/09/2022

1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners

have challenged the F.I.R. No. 04/2019 registered with Piloda,

Police Station in the Distt. Sawai Madhopur for offences u/s 323,

341, 452, 504, 354 & 34 I.P.C. as well as the order of cognizance

dated 24.04.2022 passed in connection with the aforesaid FIR on

the protest petition filed by respondent No.2.

The challenge is on the ground that the impugned FIR was

maliciously instituted as counter-blast to FIR No. 129/2018

registered with the same Police Station for offences under Section

323, 341, 354 and 498A IPC.

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-4368/2022]

2. The case of the petitioners is that sister of the petitioners

namely Nareshi Bai was married with Dharam Singh. Respondent

No.2 Hari Gopal @ Mukesh, is elder brother of Dharam Singh.

Nareshi Bai lodged FIR No. 129/2018 on 26.12.2018 for an

incident of assault dated 24.12.2018 which was allegedly for non-

fulfillment of dowry demands. Respondent No.2 and his wife

Muneshi are accused in the case and they are also carrying

allegation of physical assault for non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

The husband of Nareshi is also accused in the aforesaid case. The

trial of the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence.

3. The impugned FIR was lodged on 2.1.2019 by respondent

No.2 alleging therein that on 24.12.2018, there was some

altercation between Nareshi and Muneshi. Nareshi called her

brothers (petitioners herein) who came on a motor cycle on

25.12.2018. They started hurling abuses to Muneshi and bitterly

assaulted to Muneshi. When the neighbours came, they rescued

Muneshi. Respondent No.2 reported the matter to the police on

26.12.2018, however the police did not register the case

thereafter respondent No.2 sent a registered letter to the

Superintendent of Police of the District on 27.12.2018. No action

was taken on the letter then a complaint petition was filed before

the Judicial Magistrate who forwarded the complaint under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C.to the police and the police registered the impugned

FIR No. 04/2019. After investigation of the case, the police

submitted Final Report. Thereafter under directions of the

Magistrate, the matter was further investigated and again Final

Report was submitted by the police. On the basis of protest

petition filed by the complainant, learned Magistrate conducted

inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C and considering the statement of

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-4368/2022]

witnesses of inquiry, cognizance was taken for offences under

Section 323, 341, 452, 504, 354 & 34 I.P.C by the impugned order

dated 21.4.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

impugned criminal prosecution suffers, out and out, from malice

to pressurize the petitioners in the case under Section 498A IPC

brought by the sister of the petitioners against respondent and his

family members. The police twice investigated the matter and on

both occasions submitted negative final reports which goes to

show the falsity of the case of respondent No.2. Reliance has

been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

cases of (i) Anupriya Pal & ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &

Anr., (2019) 14 SCC 643, (ii) Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT

of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; and (iii) Rajiv Thapar & ors. Vs.

Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that in both

the FIRs, the incident is alleged to have taken place on the same

day. Even if matrimonial dispute was there, it cannot be ruled out

that for that dispute, the offence as alleged in the impugned FIR

would have been committed against the family members of

respondent No.2. While taking cognizance in the case, the learned

Magistrate has mentioned in the impugned order that the police

examined only witnesses of the village of the petitioners and not

any of the villagers of place of occurrence. Therefore, the

investigation was itself faulty one. Moreover, the witnesses of

inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. who supported the allegations

are neighbours of the place of occurrence. In that view of the

matter, this Court should not substitute its decision to that of the

learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-4368/2022]

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no

merit in the contention of the petitioners that medical report of

Muneshi would reveal that she had sustained simple bruises only

and the time of injury does not correspond to the date of incident,

for the simple reason that eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved

only for the medical report especially when the medical report

does not contain the reason for such finding that injury was

caused seven to eight days back vide date of examination dated

11.1.2019. Learned counsel contends that meticulous

appreciation of evidence would not be permissible at this stage to

scuttle the criminal prosecution without trial.

7. On consideration of the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case and available material on record, it is

evident that both sides have alleged that incident happened on

24.12.2018/25.12.2018. There is no dispute that there is

matrimonial discord between the two family, hence chances of

commission of alleged act in both the FIRs cannot be ruled out

completely. It is common experience that some times, due to

matrimonial dispute, the family members of the bride also commit

the offence of assault etc. There is nothing substantial to

disbelieve the impugned FIR only for the reason that it is

subsequent to the FIR lodged by the petitioner side. The

Magistrate after recording the statements of witnesses of the

occurrence has come to the conclusion that it is a fit case wherein

all accused should be summoned to face trial. Therefore,

cognizance order could cannot be faulted with.

8. The facts of Anupriya Pal (supra) is quite distinguishable as

matrimonial discord in the family had started two years back prior

to lodging of the FIR on 2.12.2011 and filing of the maintenance

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-4368/2022]

case on 5.6.2011. In that case, the impugned FIR under Section

420 and 504 IPC was filed on 3.7.2012 evidently after lapse of a

long time from filing of the counter-case. In the circumstances,

the subsequent FIR was quashed.

In Prashant Bharti (supra), the complainant had herself

besides the accused, had filed a writ petition seeking quashing of

the FIR lodged by herself for offences under Section 376, 324 and

354 IPC.

In Rajiv Thapar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court said

that while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court

need not go into the truthfulness of the allegations nor can weight

of defence evidence be determined. When materiel placed before

the Court prima facie shows truthfulness of the allegations, the

trial must proceed even when accused is successful in raising

some suspicion or doubt in allegations levelled. This is so because

it would result in giving finality to the accusation levelled by the

prosecution, without allowing the prosecution to adduce the

evidence to substantiate the same.

9. Considering the settled proposition of law, and the facts of

this case, as discussed above, this Court is of the view that no

interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is

required in this matter, hence this petition stands dismissed as

devoid of merits.

10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Sawai

Madhopur who shall ensure that judgment in both the cases

should be passed by the same Judge.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/67

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)