The High Court at Jaipur dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 498A IPC. The court held that allegations of dowry harassment formed the basis of the FIR, precluding frivolous quashing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.110/2016
1.Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Prahlad Kumar Sharma, aged 33 years, B/c Brahmin, R/o plot no. 7 Gautam Colony, Behind Akashwani, Bajariya, Mantown, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
2.Bhupendra Kumar S/o Shri Prahlad Kumar Sharma, aged 43 years, B/c Brahmin, R/o plot no. 7 Gautam Colony, Behind Akashwani, Bajariya, Mantown, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
3.Smt Rekha W/o Shri Bhupendra Kumar, aged 40 years, B/c Brahmin, R/o plot no. 7 Gautam Colony, Behind Akashwani, Bajariya, Mantown, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
4.Gomit D/o Shri Prahlad Kumar W/o Shri Omprakash, aged 45 years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
V/s.
2
Date of Order: February 15, 2017
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Mr. Ashindra Gautam ] Mrs. Vijay Laxmi Gautam], for the petitioners. Mr. R.R. Gurjar, P.P. for the State. Dr. Mahesh Sharma, for the respondent No.2.
Learned State Counsel has submitted that this petition has been rendered infructuous qua petitioners No.3 to 9 as they have been found innocent during investigation.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed as infructuous qua petitioners No.3 to 9.
Heard qua petitioners No.1 and 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case. FIR in question had been lodged as a counter-blast to the divorce petition filed by the petitioner No.1 against the complainant. Petitioner No.2 is the elder brother of the petitioner No.1. Complainant had herself left the matrimonial home. Earlier petitioner No.1 had filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and the same is pending.
Learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have been opposed the petition. Learned
3
counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioners No.1 and 2 were running joint business and were living together.
Petitioner No.1 got married to the complainant on 17.1.2013. It is the case of the complainant that sufficient dowry was given by her parents at the time of her marriage. However, petitioners started harassing the complainant and raised a demand of a four wheeler or Rupees Ten Lacs in cash. It is further case of the complainant that she had been given beatings by the petitioners as she could not meet the demand raised by them.
Keeping in view the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners no ground for quashing the FIR qua petitioners No.1 and 2 is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA),J.
Tanwar/P.A. Item No.10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report should be quashed regarding the petitioner-appellants.
Pankaj Kumar Sharma
Bhupendra Kumar
State of Rajasthan
Reena Gautam
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
