Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaiprakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:41655) on 10 October, 2024
Author: Rajendra Prakash Soni
Bench: Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2024:RJ-JD:41655]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 621/2022
Jaiprakash S/o Nathulal Sharma, by caste Brahmin, aged about
45 years, resident of Harinarayanpura Police Station Kotkhawada
District Jaipur.
(Lodged at District Jail Pali)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through PP
2. Abhilasha W/o Jaiprakash D/o Chiranjilal, aged about 29
years, resident of D-1 Tagor Nagar Pali
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Godara.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP.
Mr. Mahesh Joshi, for the respondent
No.2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
10/10/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application
seeking early hearing of the matter.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, the matter has been heard finally and being decided by
this order.
3. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
husband challenging the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Pali, in Criminal Appeal No.
39/2020 whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred on behalf
of the petitioner-husband, affirmed the order dated 27.02.2020
[2024:RJ-JD:41655] (2 of 4) [CRLR-621/2022]
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pali, in Criminal Case
No. 176/2015 whereby, the learned Judicial Magistrate had
convicted the petitioner-husband for offence under Sections 498-A
and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo
one year simple imprisonment under Section 498-A of IPC, while
imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further directed to undergo one
month simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine and also
sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment under
Section 323 of IPC and further directed to undergo 15 days
additional simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.2
- wife had filed a complaint against the petitioner-husband and
others alleging that on 06.03.2009, she had married to petitioner
-husband and out of their financial standard, goods as mentioned
in list "A" had been given to the petitioner - husband's family. It
was further stated that the petitioner had beaten the respondent -
wife and demanded money of Rs. 20 lacs with other items just two
days after the marriage. It was also stated that the father of the
respondent-wife had given Rs. 1 lac to the petitioner's family as
dowry demand. It was also stated that in order to abort the
children from the womb of the wife, petitioner - husband and his
family gave pills and ill-treatment to the respondent-wife and told
that till their demands were not fulfilled, respondent-wife cannot
give birth to the child. So many allegations had been levelled
against the petitioner and his family.
5. Upon the aforesaid complaint of the respondent-wife, the
Trial Court sent the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for
[2024:RJ-JD:41655] (3 of 4) [CRLR-621/2022]
investigation to the concerned Police Station and after receiving
the complaint, the police registered an FIR No. 57/2014. After
investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against petitioner-
husband under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code.
6. The Trial Court concerned took cognizance of the offences as
mentioned above against the petitioner-husband and the case had
been registered. On 04.02.2016, after hearing the arguments of
both the parties, charges under the aforesaid sections of the
Indian Penal Code were framed and read-over to the petitioner-
husband. The petitioner-husband denied all the charges and
claimed trial.
7. In support of the case, the prosecution had examined PW-1
complainant herself, PW-2 Chirangilal Sharma, PW-3 Megharam,
PW-4 Dinesh Kumar, PW-5 Narayanlal, PW-6 Jasaram, PW-7
Radheyshyam, PW-8 Prabodh Kumar, PW-9 Laluram, PW-10
Rajudan, PW-11 Ramavtar and PW-12 Narendra Kumar and as
many as 15 documents were exhibited.
8. The accused (petitioner-husband) had examined DW-1
Kamlesh Sharma, DW-2 Ramjilal Verma, DW-3 Suresh Kumar and
DW-4 Ramsahah and exhibited 3 documents.
9. After hearing the final arguments of both the parties and
after appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, the
learned Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 27.02.2020
convicted and sentenced the accused (petitioner-husband) as
mentioned above.
[2024:RJ-JD:41655] (4 of 4) [CRLR-621/2022]
10. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submits
that the matter has been compromised between the parties to the
dispute and their marriage has been dissolved by the Family Court
concerned under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Learned counsel prayed that this revision petition may be allowed
and the petitioner be acquitted from the charges levelled against
him.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2
does not dispute the factum of compromise and annulment of
marriage, as mentioned above.
12. Accordingly, the present revision petition filed on behalf of
the accused-petitioner is allowed; the impugned judgment and
orders dated 27.02.2020 and 09.06.2022 passed by the Courts
below are hereby quashed and set aside and as a necessary
consequence, the petitioner is acquitted of all the charges levelled
against him.
13. As the petitioner-husband in on bail, his bail bonds are
discharged.
14. Disposed of accordingly.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J
375-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
