Allowed

Prasoon Kumar Jaiman and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC10 Jul 2017CRLMP/2409/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bench allowed the petition challenging the revision order which directed cognizance under Section 313 IPC. The court observed lack of medical evidence proving miscarriage was caused by injuries inflicted by the petitioners, quashing the lower court direction.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 12.4.2016 of revision court set aside.

Prasoon Kumar Jaiman and Ors. Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. CR. MISC. PETITION NO. 2409/2016.

¶3

Prasoon Kumar Jaiman Son of Late Chandraprakash Jaiman, aged about 35 years,

¶4

Geeta Jaiman Wife of Late Chandraprakash Jaiman,

¶5

Deepak Jaiman Son of Late ChandraprakashJaiman, All by caste Brahmin, Residents of C-234, Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶8

Alpna @ Teenu Wife of Shri Prasoon Jaiman D/o Shri Shyam Babu Sharma, aged about 24 years, by caste Brahmin, Resident of Tulsi Narayan Vila, Nai Sadak, Kachari, Alwar, Police Station Kotwali, Alwar (Raj.)

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Neetu Dave

¶10

For State : Shri Jitendra Shrimalee .P.P.

¶11

For Respondent No.2: Shri Naeemuddin Aqil

¶12

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶13

Order

¶14

10/7/2017

¶15

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 challenging the order dated 12.4.2016, whereby court of revision ordered that the trial court should also take cognizance of the offence under Section 313 Indian Penal Code 1860.

¶16

Respondent No.2 lodged FIR against the petitioners under Section 498A and 406 IPC. After investigation of the case challan was presented against the petitioners under Section 498A, 406, 313

¶17

IPC. Trial court vide order dated 2.3.2012 held that prima facie no offence under Section 313 IPC was made out against the petitioners. Aggrieved against the said order. Complainant filed a revision petition and the court of revision vide impugned order dated 12.4.2016 directed the trial court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 313 IPC. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the medical opinion it was a case of ‘missed abortion’. Respondent No.2 was examined on 5.3.2009 and on her sonography it transpired that she was not pregnant. On 20.9.2009, the Doctor gave the opinion that it was a case of ‘missed abortion’. Hence, no offence under Section 313 IPC could be said to have been committed by the petitioners.

¶19

Learned State Counsel and the learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.

¶20

Section 312 and Section 313 IPC read as under :-

¶21

“312. Causing miscarriage.—Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall, if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if the woman be

¶22

quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—A woman who causes herself to miscarry, is within the meaning of this section.”

¶23

“313. Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent.—Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶24

Thus, as per the above provisions, whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry without his consent, was liable for punishment.

¶25

In the present case, as per the medical opinion, it was a case of ‘missed abortion’. Although, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the respondent No.2 had suffered abortion as she had been given beatings by the petitioners but has failed to point out any medical evidence on record to substantiate the plea that the respondent No.2 had miscarried on account of injuries/beatings given to her by the petitioners.

¶26

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned trial court had rightly held that, prima facie, it was not established that the petitioners had committed offence under Section 313 IPC. The court of revision fell in error directing the trial court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 313 IPC against the petitioners.

¶27

Accordingly this petition is allowed. Impugned

¶28

order dated 12.4.2016 is set aside.

¶29

(SABINA)J.

¶30

Mrg.

Prasoon Kumar Jaiman and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasoon Kumar Jaiman and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 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

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Narendra @ Bholu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Laxmi Devi Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Nanag Ram Meena Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Kishore Saxena Vs State of Rajasthan through P P