Partly allowed

Smt Veena Bammi and Ors. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 Aug 2018CRLMP/109/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR against the mother-in-law and husband due to specific allegations of cruelty. However, relying on Preeti Gupta, it quashed the FIR against the elder brother, wife of the elder brother, and married sister of the husband.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashed against the elder brother, jethani, and nanad. Petition against the mother-in-law and husband dismissed. Mother-in-law allowed personal bail subject to undertaking to appear in trial court

Smt Veena Bammi and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 109/2018

¶3

Smt. Veena Bammi W/o Late Shri Satish Bammi B/c Punjabi , R/o 26, Govindgarh, Dehradun, Uttrakhand.

¶4

Shri Chirag Bammi S/o Late Shri Satish Bammi B/c Punjabi , R/o 26, Govindgarh, Dehradun, Uttrakhand.

¶5

Smt. Anjali W/o Chirag Bammi B/c Punjabi , R/o 26, Govindgarh, Dehradun, Uttrakhand.

¶6

Smt. Urvashi Jaggi W/o Kapil , R/o 103, Nehru Colony, Dehradun, Uttrakhand.

¶7

Shri Gaurav Bammi S/o Late Shri Satish Bammi B/c Punjabi , R/o 26, Govindgarh, Dehradun, Uttrakhand.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶11

Smt. Suraksha W/o Shri Gaurav Bammi, D/o Roshan Lal Jasuja B/c Punjabi , R/o A-321, Second Floor, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur West, Raj.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anoop Pareek For the State : Mr. Prakash Thakuria, P.P.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶15

/ Order

¶16

03/08/2018

¶17

Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.0264/2017 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (West) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 341 I.P.C.

¶18

Complainant-respondent No.2 – Smt. Suraksha, as per Hindu Customs & Rites, on 17.11.2010 was married with Gaurav

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[CRLMP-109/2018]

¶21

Bammi, petitioner No.5 at Dehradun (Uttrakhand). The matrimonial relations turned sour and Smt. Suraksha, complainant/respondent No.2 was compelled to lodge case/F.I.R. No.0264/2017 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (West) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 341 I.P.C.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it is wrongly stated that in November & December, 2016 and February, 2017 husband at Jaipur misbehaved with the complainant/respondent No.2- aggrieved-wife under the influence of liquor. Counsel has further submitted that this allegation has been levelled only to create jurisdiction at the Court at Jaipur.

¶23

In the present case, it has been specifically stated that ‘ stridhan of the complainant/respondent No.2/ aggrieved-wife has been misappropriated.

¶24

Attention of ld. counsel appearing for the petitioners has been drawn towards Section 181 Sub Section 4 of the Cr.P.C.

¶25

As per said Section, the petitioner No.5 is bound to return articles of stridhan at the place where the wife is residing, therefore, Courts at Jaipur has jurisdiction to try the offences.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶27

From perusal of the impugned F.I.R. and the report of investigation, specific allegations of inflicting cruelty, mental and physical are made out against petitioner No.1 - Smt. Veena Bammi, mother-in-law, petitioner No.5 - Gauram Bammi, husband of complainant, therefore, the present petition, qua them is, hereby, dismissed.

¶28

Counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in A.I.R. 2010 Supreme Court 3363, to contend

¶29

(3 of 4)

¶30

[CRLMP-109/2018]

¶31

that the provisions of Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. have been misused and unnecessarily all family members have been dragged into the matrimonial litigation.

¶32

Counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that petitioner No.2 - Chirag Bammi is elder brother of the husband of complainant ( jeth ), petitioner No.3 - Smt. Anjali is wife of elder brother of the husband of the complainant ( jethani ) and whereas petitioner No.4 - Smt. Urvashi Jaggi is married sister of the husband of the complainant ( nanad ). Counsel has further contended that the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 have nothing to gain from the alleged demand of dowry.

¶33

Considering the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta ( supra ), the present petition is accepted , qua the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 i.e. elder brother of husband ( jeth ) wife of the elder brother of husband ( jethani ) and sister of husband ( nanad ) of the complainant respectively. The impugned F.I.R. qua them is quashed.

¶34

Considering the age and relationship of the petitioner No.1Smt. Veena Bammi, her personal appearance before the trial Court is exempted, subject to following conditions :-

¶35

“A. That the petitioner No.1 shall file an undertaking that she shall appear before the ld. trial Court at the time of framing of the charges, recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of delivery of the judgment.

¶36

B. That the petitioner No.1 shall further state in the undertaking that the evidence of the witnesses recorded in her absence but in the presence of her Counsel shall be binding upon her.

¶37

C. That in the undertaking, so filed she shall state that she shall appear before the ld. Court below as and when called upon to do so.

¶38

(4 of 4)

¶39

[CRLMP-109/2018]

¶40

D. That the upon appearance of the petitioner No.1, the trial Court shall accept personal bail bonds and bonds to be submitted by the sureties of the petitioner No.1 and same shall enure during the pendency of the trial.”

¶41

ashok

¶42

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

Smt Veena Bammi and Ors. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Veena Bammi and Ors. v. State of Raj 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

Harmendra Singh @ Mahendra Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ramchandra Saini Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Kishan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mulya Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sunita Vs State of Raj and Anr.