Dismissed

Sudarshan v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC25 Mar 2017CRLA/914/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against the Family Court's order rejecting an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant husband. The court held that the trial court's discretion in not prosecuting the respondent wife for false averments made in her Section 125 maintenance application was not liable to be interfered with.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed.

Sudarshan Vs State and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 914 / 2016

¶3

Sudarshan Bareth S/o Col Bhuwaneshwar Bareth, By caste Charan age-30 years, R/o 117, Kanishka Resorts, Pal By Pass Road, Near DPS School, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan thrugh Public Prosecutor.

¶7

Smt. Vandana Sauda D/o Shri Prahlad Singh Ji Sauda, Age 28 years, B/C Charan At present R/o Govardhan Inani, 10 Surbhi Vihar, New Keshav Nagar, Roopsagar Road, District Udaipur (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jog Singh

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, P.P.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order

¶12

25/03/2017

¶13

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the Family Court Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 795/2014 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘çourt below’), whereby the court below has rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the respondent No.2.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that marriage of the appellant and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 24.04.2012 at Udaipur. On account of some dispute, the appellant and respondent No.2 started residing separately and thereafter the respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the appellant and his family members alleging demand of dowry and cruelty. The complaint was

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLA-914/2016]

¶17

proceeded by the police and the appellant and his family members were summoned and they were asked to return the ‘stridhan’ of the respondent No.2. The appellant and his family members have returned all the ‘stridhan’ of the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 has also received the same and a receipt of that effect has also been furnished by her before the police.

¶18

When the investigation into the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 regarding demand of dowry and cruelty was going on, the respondent No.2 had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court claiming monthly maintenance from the appellant. In the said application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in para No.7, she has averred that the ‘stridhan’ of her is in possession of appellant and his family members and they have intention to misappropriate the same. The appellant then filed reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. while claiming that the ‘stridhan’ of the respondent No.2 has already been delivered to her and the said averment in the application is false. The appellant has also moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. praying to take cognizance against the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC.

¶19

Soon thereafter, the respondent No.2 has moved an application before the Family Court seeking deletion of the objectionable averments from the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. while claiming that the said averments have been mentioned due to inadvertence and typographical mistake. The said application of the respondent No.2 was not allowed by the

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLA-914/2016]

¶22

trial court and the application was kept pending while observing that whether such averment made by the respondent No.2 is deliberately or inadvertently is the question, which will be decided after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties.

¶23

The application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has ultimately been decided by the trial court vide impugned order while holding that it appears that the objectionable averments were made in the application under Section 125 by an advocate, who has drafted it and when the respondent No.2 herself has moved an application for deletion of the said objectionable averment, there is no reason to allow the application filed by the appellant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and to prosecute the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable Section 193 IPC.

¶24

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the trial court is not liable to be interfered with.

¶25

In view of the above, this criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶26

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶27

Taruna

Sudarshan v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarshan 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

Shankar Lal Vs State and Anr.

Raja Vs Narendra Lohar

Mukesh Vs State

Jdvvnl Vs Sohan Lal

State Vs Ram Swaroop and Ors.

State Vs Onkar and Anr.