Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Durga Devi vs State And Anr (2025:Rj-Jd:4187) on 22 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:4187]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 463/2005
Durga Devi W/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, D/o Shri Madan Lal, B/c
Meghwal, Presently R/o Nimaj, PS Jaitaran, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Gumna Ram, B/c Meghwal (Tanwar),
R/o Village Meghrada, Tehsil Sojat City, PS Raipur, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
22/01/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 01.04.2005,
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.1),
Pali H.Q. Jaitaran, District Pali in Cr. Revision No.22/2005 whereby
the learned Judge while allowing the revision petition filed by
respondent No.2, reversed the order dated 20.10.2001, passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, District Pali
and quashed the order dated 23.06.1998, whereby cognizance
was taken against the respondent No.2 for offence under Section
498-A IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:4187] (2 of 4) [CRLR-463/2005]
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an
FIR against ten persons including the respondent No.2 for offence
under Sections 498A, 494, 406, 120-B IPC. After usual
investigation, Police filed challan against the respondent No.2 for
offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Thereafter, the trial
court took cognizance against the respondent No.2 for offence
under Section 498-A IPC vide order dated 23.06.1998. Thereafter,
an application under Section 468 Cr.P.C. was filed by the
respondent No.2 for recalling the order dated 23.06.1998, which
came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2001. Against the
order dated 23.06.1998 and 20.10.2001, the respondent No.2
preferred a revision petition before the learned revisional court i.e.
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.1), Pali HQ Jaitaran,
District Pali, who vide order dated 01.04.2005 set aside the order
dated 22.10.2001 and allowed the revision petition and
consequently, quashed the order dated 23.06.1998 of taking
cognizance.
Counsel submits that for taking cognizance of an offence, the
courts should prima facie see whether there is any evidence on
record which suggests that any offence has been committed and
thus, it is the duty incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to take
cognizance of the offence. In the present case, there is ample
evidence available on record, which connects the respondent No.2
with the commission of offence. Counsel submits that simply
because the petitioner did not mention any specific date of
incident in the complaint, it cannot be said that the offence under
Section 498-A IPC is not made out. Counsel submits that the said
offence is a recurring offence and therefore, no particular date is
[2025:RJ-JD:4187] (3 of 4) [CRLR-463/2005]
required to be given. Thus, the impugned revisional order is per se
illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the order of the
revisional court is perfectly justified and does not warrant any
interference from this Court and prays for dismissal of the revision
petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order as well as material available on record.
In this case, an FIR was filed by the petitioner against ten
persons including the respondent No.2 for offence under Sections
498A, 494, 406, 120-B IPC and after usual investigation, Police
filed challan against the respondent No.2 for offence punishable
under Section 498-A IPC. Thereafter, the trial court took
cognizance for offence under Section 498-A IPC vide order dated
23.06.1998. Against which, an application under Section 468
Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent No.2 for recalling the order
dated 23.06.1998, which came to be dismissed vide order dated
20.10.2001. Against the order dated 23.06.1998 and 20.10.2001,
the respondent No.2 preferred a revision petition before the
learned revisional court, which came to be allowed vide order
dated 01.04.2005 and the revisional court set aside the orders
dated 23.06.1998 and 22.10.2001 and consequently, quashed the
order of taking cognizance.
In the impugned revisional order, the learned revisional court
has observed that from the evidence available on record, it
appears that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with
the respondent No.2 in the year 1976 and after five years of
marriage, they started living separately i.e. in the year 1981.
[2025:RJ-JD:4187] (4 of 4) [CRLR-463/2005]
According to provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but
not exceeding three years, then the limitation for taking
cognizance is three years. The maximum punishment for offence
under Section 498A IPC is three years. Learned revisional court
held that according to the material available on record, after 1983,
the petitioner did not live with the respondent No.2. Meaning
thereby, before 1983 both the petitioner and respondent No.2
started living separately and after 1983, no such incident was
happened with the petitioner for which cognizance for offence
under Section 498A IPC can be taken against the respondent
No.2.
The learned revisional court has given detailed reasoning to
allow the revision filed by the respondent No.2 and quashed the
order of cognizance. The learned revisonal court, after considering
all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as material
available on record has rightly set aside the order of cognizance
passed by the trial court against the accused-respondent No.2 for
offence under Section 498-A IPC.
The impugned revisional order does not suffer from any
illegality and perversity. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, no interference is called for in the impugned revisional order.
The revision petition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
8-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
