Disposed

Smt Suvita and Anr. v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC31 Jan 2017CRLMP/333/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an FIR alleging abduction and false claims of kidnapping following their marriage. The court directed the investigating officer to record the statement of the female petitioner to ascertain her age and willingness. Police protection was made conditional upon the petitioners submitting a formal representation to the Superintendent of Police.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of F.I.R. quash petition; directed police to record female petitioner's statement to assess age and consent; protection contingent on representation to Superintendent of Police.

Smt Suvita and Anr. Vs State and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B.Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 333 / 2017

¶3

Smt. Suvita W/o Ram Lal Saini D/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 18 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Ward No. 04, Seetsar, Churu Rajasthan At Present Residing At Gangapura Tehsil Ramgarh, Shekhawati District Sikar Rajasthan.

¶4

Ram Lal Saini S/o Thakar Ram Saini, Aged About 24 Years, B/c Saini, R/o Gangapura Tehsil Ramgarh, Shekhawati District Sikar Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶8

Bhanwar Lal S/o Kajoda Ram Meghwal, Ward No. 04, Seetsar, Churu Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

_____________________________________________________ Petitioners Self : Ms. Suvita – petitioner No.1 Mr. Ram Lal Saini – petitioner No.2 For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit - PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

31/01/2017

¶14

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :-

¶15

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and F.I.R. No. 11/2017 registered at P.S. Ratangarh, District Churu may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

¶16

The respondent authorities may kindly be directs to provide appropriate protection to the petitioners at their native place as well as place of serving of the petitioner No.2.

¶17

The respondent authorities may kindly be directed not to chasing the petitioners as well as interfere in the peaceful

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CRLMP-333/2017]

¶20

happy married life of the petitioners.

¶21

That the private respondent may kindly be restrained from interfering in matrimonial life of the petitioners.

¶22

Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed.”

¶23

The petitioners present in person have submitted that they are major and as per their own will got married to each other on 12.01.2017. It is contended that the respondent No.2 – Bhanwar Lal, who is father of the petitioner No.1, is annoyed with their marriage and, therefore, he has filed false FIR No.11/2017 on 13.01.2017 at Police Station, Ratangarh, District Churu against the petitioner No.2 and four other persons alleging that they abducted his daughter in the intervening night of 11.01.2017 and 12.01.2017. It is also alleged that they also took away Rs.5,000/and some ornaments from his house. It is contended by the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 went with the petitioner No.2 as per her own free will and the allegations levelled in the FIR No.11/2017 of Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu are false. It is further contended by the petitioners that the family members of the petitioner No.1 have threatened them with dire consequences, therefore, adequate police protection be provided to them.

¶24

After considering the arguments advanced by the petitioners and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner No.1 is major and went with the petitioner No.2 as per her own will and solemnized marriage with him, then she may appear before the

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CRLMP-333/2017]

¶27

Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the FIR No.11/2017 of Police Station, Ratangarh, District Churu, and get her statement recorded. If the petitioner No.1 appear before the Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the FIR No.11/2017 of Police Station, Ratangarh, District Churu, he/she may record her statement and after ascertaining her age may proceed further with the investigation in accordance with law.

¶28

Further, if the petitioners are having any apprehension regarding their lives and liberty from the respondent No.2 and relatives of the petitioner No.1 they may move appropriate representation before the Superintendent of Police, Churu narrating their grievances within a period of one week from today. It is expected that if any such representation is moved on behalf of the petitioners, the Superintendent of Police, Churu shall consider the same and after analysing the threat perception, if required so, may provide adequate police protection.

¶29

It is made clear that this order is not a proof of the marriage of the petitioners and any observations made in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the petitioners at the instance of their relatives.

¶30

With these observations this criminal misc. petition is disposed of.

¶31

Stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶32

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶33

Abhishek Kumar S.No.13

Smt Suvita and Anr. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Suvita and Anr. 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

Jetharam and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Shyam Lal Vs State and Anr.

Sharda Devi Vs State and Anr.

Rashmi Rathore Vs State and Anr.

Anil Sharma Vs State and Anr.

Jeewan Mal Vs State and Anr.