Partly allowed

Hari Prasad v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC6 Feb 2012CRLMP/1662/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR registered against Kailash Chandra Joshi and others as they were not implicated in dowry harassment or cruelty, while rejecting the petition seeking quashing of the proceedings against Hari Prasad.

What did the court decide?

SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.900/2011 allowed and FIR quashed qua Kailash Chandra Joshi and others; SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1662/2011 and stay petitions disposed.

Hari Prasad Vs State and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

1.S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1662/2011 Hari Prasad. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶3

2.S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.900/2011

¶4

Kailash Chandra Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Anr.

¶5

DATE OF ORDER : 6.2.2012

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶7

Mr.Gaurav Singh ) Mr.Firoz Khan ) for the petitioners.

¶8

Ms.Chandralekha, PP, for the respondent State. Mr.Mahaveer Charan, for the respondent no.2.

¶9

The present misc. petitions have been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of F.I.R. No.84/2011 registered against them at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC.

¶10

The impugned F.I.R. has been challenged by the petitioners on three grounds namely, (1) that the same does not disclose any offence either under Section 498A or Section 406 IPC, (2) even if the allegations of the prosecution are considered to be true at its highest, then also the same do not constitute any offence for which the Court at Jodhpur had jurisdiction to try the case because as per the counsel for the petitioner, all the acts of cruelty with the complainant/respondent no.2 had taken place at Jaipur and (3) so far as the petitioners in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.900/2011 namely, Kailash Chandra Joshi, Smt.

¶11

¶12

Chetna, Girdhari Lal and Smt. Kanta, are concerned, there is no allegation against them that they ever harassed the complainant for bringing less dowry or that they misappropriated her dowry articles. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed in its entirety or the proceedings of the FIR should be sent at Jaipur where the alleged cruelty was committed with the complainant.

¶13

Learned P.P. and counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer made for quashing the impugned FIR. Counsel for the complainant submits that there is specific allegation of the complainant that her husband harassed her for bringing less dowry and the complainant was pressurized for taking loan of Rs.5 lakhs so that accused Hari Prasad (husband) could cover his losses. Thus, he submits that the said allegation definitely constitutes cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. So far as the petitioners in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.900/2011 namely, Kailash Chandra Joshi, Smt. Chetna, Girdhari Lal and Smt. Kanta, are concerned, counsel for the complainant frankly concedes that there is no specific allegation against them for having harassed the complainant or for demanding dowry. He further admits that there is no allegation of the complainant that these petitioners ever came to Jodhpur or ever made any demand from her.

¶14

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and perused the impugned FIR

¶15

¶16

as well as case diary.

¶17

From a perusal of the impugned FIR and the material collected by the police during the course of investigation, it becomes apparent that so far as the petitioners in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.900/2011 namely, Kailash Chandra Joshi, Smt. Chetna, Girdhari Lal and Smt. Kanta, are concerned, neither any allegation has been made in the FIR which can justify registration of FIR against them nor the allegations have been substantiated during the course of investigation. All the acts of cruelty and demand of dowry which have been made upon the complainant, are limited to the accused petitioner Hari Prasad. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the continuation of the criminal proceedings in this case pursuant to the impugned FIR is clearly an abuse of process of court and the same is hereby quashed qua the petitioners in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.900/2011 namely, Kailash Chandra Joshi, Smt. Chetna, Girdhari Lal and Smt. Kanta.

¶18

So far as the petitioner Hari Prasad (husband) is concerned, there is an allegation against him that he after coming to Jodhpur pressurized the complainant for taking loan of Rs.5 lakhs and also committed cruelty upon her. Resultantly, it cannot be said that the impugned FIR does not disclose any cause of action for proceeding at Jodhpur qua the petitioner Hari Prasad.

¶19

The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that SB

¶20

¶21

Criminal Misc. Petition No.900/2011 filed by Kailash Chandra Joshi, Smt. Chetna, Girdhari Lal and Smt. Kanta is allowed and the F.I.R. No.84/2011 registered qua them at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Jodhpur and all subsequent investigations pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.

¶22

SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1662/2011 filed by Hari

¶23

Prasad is hereby rejected.

¶24

Stay petitions also stand disposed of.

¶25

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

¶26

S.Phophaliya

Hari Prasad v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Prasad v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Prime Chem Oil Ltd.and Ors. Vs State

Harish Chandra Vs State and Anr.

Surendra Kumar and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Smt.Babita Jalota Vs State and Anr.

Veena Gupta Vs State and Ors.

Kailash Chandra and Ors. Vs State and Anr.