Allowed

Sakhi Devi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC5 May 2017CRLMP/260/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The Court held that allegations were vague, no specific role was attributed to the petitioners, and their inclusion appeared to be an attempt to spread the net wide or seek revenge after a suicide FIR.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR No. 954/2016 and subsequent proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC are quashed and set aside.

Sakhi Devi and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 260/2017

¶4

1. Sakhi Devi wife of Late Shri Damodar Lal, aged about 70 years,

¶5

2. Kedar, aged about 45 years,

¶6

3. Suresh, aged about 40 years,

¶7

4. Prem Singh, aged about 28 years,

¶8

No. 2 to 4 are sons of Late Shri Damodar Lal,

¶9

5. Rajeshwari wife of Kedar,

¶10

All are by caste Brahmin, resident of Bamanpura Mohalla, Bayana, district Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶11

...Accused-Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

1. The State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶14

2. Priyanka Pachori wife of Late Shri Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Daughter of Satish Chand Sharma, by caste Brahmin, resident of Bamanpura Mohalla, Bayana, at present Chandan Colony, Bhusawar, Police Station Bhusawar, district Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶15

...Complainant/Respondent.

¶16

DATE OF ORDER ::: 5^th May, 2017

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶18

Mr. Rajendra Sharma for the Petitioners.

¶19

Mr. Umashanker Pandey for the Respondent. Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, PP.

¶20

Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Inspector of Police, SHO, Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur.

¶21

Petitioners accused preferred this misc. petition under

¶22

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing impugned FIR No. 954/2016 registered at Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur.

¶23

The facts necessary for the disposal of the present

¶24

¶25

application in short are that the respondent No. 2 Ms. Priyanka wife of late Shri Vishnu Kumar Sharma submitted a criminal complaint before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana against the present petitioner stating therein:-

¶26

^^;g fd vfHk;ksfxuh rFkk vfHk;qDr la[;k&,d ds iq= Lofo".kqdqekj dk fookg fgUnw jhfr fjokt ls lIrinh ysdj fnukad 04-022014 dks lEiUu gqvk FkkA tks vius ifr dh e`R;q rd crkSj ifr&iRuh jgs rFkk ,d iq=h HkkO;k dks fnukad 25uoEcj] 2014 dks tUe fn;kA ftldk ikyu iks"k.k eSa Lo;a dj esjs ifr dh fo/kok ds :i esa jgdj dj jgh gwaA ;g fd esjs ifr }kjk esjh ‘kknh ds le; migkj Lo:i eq>s viuh lkeFkZ vuqlkj nku nsdj fookg lEiUu fd;k ftlesa nl yk[k :i;s udn ,d dkj fLoQV fMtk;j ch-Mh-vkbZ- rFkk ,d lksus dh pSu lok rkSyk nks lksus dh vaxwBh nks tksMh dku ds >kys lksus ds ,d gkj xys dk ikap pknh ds crZu ,d pkanh dk ukfj;y pkanh ds y{eh x.ks’k o ikap lqikjh pkanh dh] pkanh dh pwfM;ka o ik;y rFkk lkeku ftlesa ,d ,-lh- ,;jdaMh’ku] ,d fQzt Vh-ch- ,yth-] Mh-oh-Mh- ,yth okf’kax e’khu] feD’ku xzkb.Mj] Mcy cSM] xnnk rFkk rfd;k] Lyksi cSy] dEcy] Mªsflax Vscy] lksQk lsV] lsUVj Vscy] xksnjst dh vkyekjh] pkSdh o czhQds’k ohvkbZih lfgr iwjk ?kjsyw lkeku crZu cxSjk nsdj fonk fd;k FkkA ;g gS fd llqjky igqpus ij rhu pkj fnu ckn gh esjh lkl lfgr lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk eq> ls ngst esa rhu yk[k :i;s tks esjs firk us [kkuk nkor esa [kpZ fd;s dks ykus ds fy, dgk rks eSa firk ls rhu yk[k :i;s ekaxus ls badkj dj fn;kA bl ij vfHk;qDr la[;k ,d yxk;r ikap us eq>s ngst ykus gsrq izrkfMr fd;k rFkk esjs firk o eq>s 'kkjhfjd o ekufld :i ls izrkfMr fd;kA ;g gS fd vfHk;qDr la[;k ,d yxk;r ikap us eq>s ngst esa rhu yk[k :i;s ykus ds fy, izrkfMr fd;kA ;g gS fd vfHk;qDr la[;k&,d yxk;r ikap us eq>s ngst esa rhu yk[k :i;s ykus ds fy, izrkfMr djrs gq, esjs gkFkksa ij xje nw/k Qsyk fn;k o esjs }kjk enn ds fy, fpYykus ij eqag cUn dj fn;k rFkk vfHk;qDr la[;k nks o ikap ekjihV djrs jgsA mDr ?kVuk esjs ifr ds bZykt ds ckgj pys tkus ds ckn dh tc mDr ?kVuk eSaus vius ifr dks crkbZ rks mUgksaus ,d dejk fdjk;s ij ys fy;k o ge ogka Ng lkr eghus jkth [kq’kh jgus yxs] fdUrq vfHk;qDr la[;k ,d yxk;r ikap vk;s vkSj esjs ls lksus ds xys dk gkj] dkuksa ds >kys o vaxwBh dks ekjihV dj ys x;s o esjs ifr dks ekjihV dj xkMh fLoQV fMtk;j dks ys x;sA ;g gS fd mDr ?kVuk ls ijs’kku gksdj esjs ifr }kjk vkRegR;k dj yh xbZ gS ftldh eq>s lwpuk fn;s fcuk gh nkg laLdkj dj esjs L=h/ku dks gMius ds mnns’; ls esjs fo:) eqdnek ntZ djok fn;k x;kA ml le; Hkh eSaus ,d izkFkZuki= iqfyl Fkkuk c;kuk esa izLrqr fd;k Fkk fdUrq iqfyl Fkkuk c;kuk }kjk dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha djus ds dkj.k esjh vekur dks fnykus tkus dk vfHk;ksx izLrqr dj jgh gwaA ;g fd vfHk;ksfxuh }kjk izLrqr fjiksVZ Fkkuk c;kuk ij ntZ ugha djus ds dkj.k fjiksVZ dh izfrfyfi Jheku iqfyl egkfujh{kd] Hkjriqj o Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd] Hkjriqj dks fHktokbZ xbZ] fdUrq dksbZ tcko ugha feykA ;g gS fd tqeZ etdqj 498,] 406 Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk dh rkjhQ esa vkrk gSA vr% izkFkZuk gS fd vfHk;ksx vfHk;ksfxuh iathc) fd;k tkdj vuqla/kku dj vfHk;ksfxuh ds lk/ku dks tCr fd;s tkus gsrq vkns’k gLo nQk 156¼3½

¶27

3 tk- QkS- eas fn;s tkus dh vkKk QjekbZ tkosA^^

¶28

The aforesaid complaint was sent for registering case to SHO Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. SHO Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur registered impugned FIR NO. 954/2016 under Sections 498A and 406 IPC on 22^nd December, 2016 and investigation commenced. Matter is presently under investigation.

¶29

Learned counsel for petitioners Shri Rajendra Sharma submits that petitioner No. 1 is mother-in law who is 70 years old lady, No. 2 and 3 are brothers-in-law (Jeth), No. 4 is brother-in law (Devar) and No. 5 is sister-in-law (Jethani) of respondent No. 2 complainant. He submits that prior to impugned FIR, petitioner No. 2 Kedar submitted a report before SHO, Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur for offence under Section 306 IPC against respondent No. 2 complainant, her father Satish Chand Sharma and Mother Sharda Devi. On which FIR No. 102/2016 was registered at Police Station Bayana, district Bharatpur under Section 306 IPC. He submits that since respondent No. 2 complainant and her parents abated the son of petitioner No. 1 and husband of respondent No. 2, Vishnu Kumar Sharma, due to their abetmet to suicide, he committed suicide on 01/02/2016 and on the very date FIR was lodged against them. In counterblast of the aforesaid FIR, respondent No. 2 complainant with connivance of her parents lodged impugned FIR No. 954/2016 on 12.12.2016 for offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC on false and fabricated grounds. He submits that from the perusal of impugned FIR itself, it reveals that prior to death of Vishnu Kumar Sharma, husband of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 complainant left the

¶30

¶31

house of petitioners and started residing separately in rented room. Thereafter, after residing for six months in rented room, respondent No. 2 complainant left for her parental house where she resided for another six months. Prior to commit suicide deceased Vishnu Kumar Sharma went to her in-laws house to meet with her wife respondent No. 2, where complainant party abated him for suicide, therefore, after returning from in-laws house on the very day, he committed suicide. He submits that in counterblast of FIR No. 102/2016 a criminal complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 complainant on 21^st December, 2016 about 10 months after FIR No. 102/2016 which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, District Bharatpur to SHO, Police Station Bayana on which impugned FIR was registered. He submits that from perusal of FIR itself it is clear that no specific overt act is assigned to any of the petitioners. Neither there is any allegation regarding entrustment of any property to any of the accused nor there is any allegation regarding alienation of the entrusted property. Further the allegations regarding cruelty are also vague and fabricated. From the bare perusal of FIR, there is lack of basic ingredients of cruelty as defined in Section 498A IPC. Without considering all these facts, IO is adamant to file charge-sheet against the present petitioners, therefore, impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside.

¶32

Learned counsel relied on Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs.

¶33

State of Jharkhand & Anr. Reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 .

¶34

IO Shri Rajesh Pathak, Inspector of Police, SHO, Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur is present in person who submitted

¶35

5 factual report of the matter through PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali which is taken on record.

¶36

Learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali submits that from investigation offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC is made out against the present petitioners and in FIR No. 102/2016 negative final report is proposed but presently the case file is lying at CID(CB) for verification.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Shri Umashanker Pandey also supported the submissions made by learned PP .

¶38

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels.

¶39

Since complainant herself admitted in her complaint that she has left the company of petitioners about one year before committing suicide by her husband and started residing in rented room with her husband and she remained stayed with her husband about six months in the rented room. Thereafter went to her parental house as such she was not living with petitioners. Further in her FIR, she did not narrate any specific incident regarding cruelty. General vague allegations were levelled against the present petitioners.

¶40

In the mater of Preeti Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. , Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:-

¶41

“It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including the Supreme Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of society. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. It is seen that a large number of such complaints are not even bona fide and are filed with

¶42

¶43

oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

¶44

Majority of the complaints are filed either on the advice or with concurrence of the learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession and must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquility of society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases………….

¶45

Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations…………

¶46

The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautions in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases………

¶47

The allegations of harassment by the husband close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant wife resided would have an entirely different complexion. Such allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful………

¶48

A serious relook at Section 498A is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy.

¶49

¶50

Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law………

¶51

In the aforesaid judgment, the facts of the case were that a complaint was filed against unmarried brother and married sister of complainant’s husband under Section 498A IPC by the complainant who were neither residing with complainant in her matrimonial home nor visited her. Demand of luxury car, passing, passing of sarcastic remarks (without stating actual wordings), and physical assault alleged against parents-in-law, husband and appellants. No specific allegation made against appellants in complaint, and none of the witnesses attributing any role to them. Therefore, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that their implication was only meant to harass and humiliate husband’s relatives. It was further observed that permitting complainant to pursue complaint would be abuse of process of law, therefore, complaint against the appellants (brother-in-law and sister-in-law of complainant) was quashed and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶52

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 13 SCC 614 has held as under:-

¶53

Though a criminal complaint lodged before the court under the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure or an FIR lodged in the police station under Chapter XII of the Code has to be brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with the procedure prescribed, power has been conferred under Section 482 of the Code to interdict such a proceeding in the event the institution/continuance of the criminal proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of court. An early discussion of the law in this regard can be found in the decision of this court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab[1] wherein the parameters of exercise of the inherent power vested by Section 561A of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (corresponding of Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973) had been laid down in the following terms :

¶54

¶55

“ (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;

¶56

(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding e.g. want of sanction;

¶57

(iii) where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and

¶58

(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.”

¶59

The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence there can be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognized to be inherent in every High Court. The power, though available, being extra ordinary in nature has to be exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts and circumstances satisfies the narrow test indicated above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled by the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However, if so warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused. In fact the power to quash a proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the materials revealed by the investigation carried out usually comes on record and such materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted in its entirety, do not, in any manner, disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the accused.

¶60

The above nature and extent of the power finds an exhaustive enumeration in a judgment of this court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others[2] which may be usefully extracted below :

¶61

“ 7. The second limb of Mr Mookerjee's argument is that in any event the High Court could not take upon itself the task of assessing or appreciating the weight of material on the record in order to find whether any charges could be legitimately framed against the respondents. So long as there is some material on the record to connect the accused with the crime, says the learned counsel, the case must go on and the High Court has no jurisdiction to put a

¶62

¶63

precipitate or premature end to the proceedings on the belief that the prosecution is not likely to succeed. This, in our opinion, is too broad a proposition to accept. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2 of 1974, provides that: . . . . .

¶64

This section is contained in Chapter XVIII called “Trial Before a Court of Session”. It is clear from the provision that the Sessions Court has the power to discharge an accused if after perusing the record and hearing the parties he comes to the conclusion, for reasons to be recorded, that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The object of the provision which requires the Sessions Judge to record his reasons is to enable the superior court to examine the correctness of the reasons for which the Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The High Court therefore is entitled to go into the reasons given by the Sessions Judge in support of his order and to determine for itself whether the order is justified by the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 482 of the New Code, which corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of 1898, provides that: . . . . .

¶65

In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient juris diction.” It would also be worthwhile to recapitulate an earlier decision of this court in Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. vs. State of Maharashtra[3] noticed in L. Muniswamy’s case (Supra) holding that the order framing a charge affects a person’s liberty substantially and therefore it is the duty of the court to consider judicially whether the materials warrant the framing of the charge. It was also held that the court ought not to blindly accept the decision of the prosecution that the accused be asked to face a trial.

¶66

In the case of Kansraj Vs. State of Punjab, (2000) 5

¶67

SCC 207, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶68

¶69

“ In the light of the evidence in the case we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the defence that respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the case only on the ground of being close relations of respondent No.2, the husband of the deceased. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.”

¶70

In the case of Monju Roy Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 693, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

¶71

“ While we do not find any ground to interfere with theview taken by the courts below that the deceased was subjected to harassment on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand, we do find merit in the submission that possibility of naming all the family members by way of exaggeration is not ruled out. In Kans Raj, this Court observed :

¶72

“5.........A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect thecase of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.”

¶73

The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best clclose family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any

¶74

specific role and material to support such role.

¶75

In Raja Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand it was observed :

¶76

¶77

“No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW 5 Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the deceased Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told them that dowry was demanded by not only Raja Lal Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi, but we are of the opinion that it is possible that the names of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi have been introduced only to spread the net wide as often happens in cases like under Sections 498-A and 394 IPC, as has been observed in several decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC 388], etc. Hence, we allow the appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial court insofar as it relates to them and we direct that they be released forthwith unless required in connection with some other case .”

¶78

In the case of Chandralekha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Reported in 2013 (1) UC 155 , Honble Supreme Court held as under:-

¶79

“ We must, at the outset, state that the High Court’s view on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we confirm the view. However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3.”

¶80

Here in the case in hand also the husband of respondent No. 2 complainant committed suicide after one year from living the company of petitioners and soon after coming to his in-laws house. No specific allegation is there against the present petitioners. Not only this, petitioner No. 1 is 70 years old lady who is mother of

¶81

¶82

deceased, Vishnu Kumar Sharma. There is no any word regarding entrustment of property to petitioners and in absence of specific allegation against the present petitioners and it is the specific case of the petitioners that they are residing at different place. This fact has not been rebutted by the respondent No. 2 during the investigation. The general allegations which have been levelled by the respondent No. 2 complainant after committing suicide and registering FIR against respondent No. 2 and her parents by petitioners accused party for offence under Section 306 IPC. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the only intention of the respondent No. 2 is to somehow prosecute as well as defame petitioners accused and to take revenge against the FIR lodged by the petitioners accused for offence under Section 306 IPC against respondent No. 2 complainant and her parents, therefore, this is a clear case of over implication of the near relatives of husband of the respondent No. 2.

¶83

Thus this Court is of the considered opinion that if the entire allegations are considered on very face value, then there is no specific allegation against any of the petitioners and they have been implicated merely because FIR was lodged against respondent No. 2 complainant and her parents regarding offence under Section 306 IPC for abetment to suicide and therefore under these circumstances it would not be proper to compel the petitioners to face agony of the criminal prosecution. In light of above Judgments, it cannot be said that prima facie any case is made out for offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC. In light of the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court this misc. petition deserves acceptance which is hereby allowed and the impugned FIR No. 954/2016 registered at Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and subsequent proceedings thereon are quashed and set aside.

¶84

However, it is open to respondent NO. 2 complainant to avail civil remedy regarding recovery of her Stridhan if advised so.

¶85

[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J.

¶86

Komal/167.

Sakhi Devi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakhi Devi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Istak Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kailash Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt Meera Devi Vs R S R T C Jaipur and Anr.

Rakesh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Amit Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Sangeeta Sharma and Ors. Vs State Medical Healt Welfare Dept Anr.