The High Court of Rajasthan quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against the petitioner, holding that no specific allegations were leveled against him in a domestic dispute, making his continued trial unjustified.
The impugned F.I.R. No.366/2014 and the charge-sheet bearing No.62/2015 were hereby quashed and proceedings against the petitioner stayed.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1774/2016
Sanjay
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Anr
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L.Sharma For Complainant : Mr. Ajay Singh For Respondent Mr. Prakash Thakuria, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
/ Order
02/07/2018
Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of charge-sheet bearing No.62/2014 dated 22.04.2015 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 495 and 120-B I.P.C.
Briefly stated, the respondent – Smt. Sunita Sharma had lodged a F.I.R. bearing No.366/2014 at Police Station Deeg District Bharatpur for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 495 and 120-B I.P.C. against her husband – Dilip Sharma.
Petitioner is a younger brother of the husband of the complainant/aggrieved-wife.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused has submitted that in the entire charge-sheet, no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that on the basis of general, vague and omnibus allegations the petitioner has been sent for the trial.
[CRLMP-1774/2016]
(2 of 3)
The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, could not point out any specific allegation against the petitioner in the entire charge-sheet.
It will be pertinent to note here that the Co-ordinate Bench on 09.11.2016 while issuing notice had stayed the proceedings, qua the petitioner by observing as under :-
“Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. SL Sharma submits that petitioner-accused is younger brother-in-law of respondent no.2/complainant against whom no specific allegation is levelled in FIR. The whole family of in-laws of respondent no.2 have been implicated in false FIR. He submits that on the basis of barred allegations, he cannot be implicated in false case.
Learned Counsel relied on Sundar Babu & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2087 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that :-
"Complaint by wife alleging offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act found to be maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on accused and with view to spite him due to private and personal grudge and on this ground the same was quashed."
Heard.
Issue notice.
Learned PP Mr. Jitendra Shrimali accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1-State. Notice of respondent no.2/complainant be served through Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur.
Rule is made returnable within 6 weeks.
Till then, further proceedings qua petitioner shall remain stayed.”
During the course of arguments, ld. Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State and ld. counsel appearing for the complainant could not dislodge the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench in the order dated 09.11.2016 by referring to any material to the chargesheet.
Taking totality of circumstances, especially the relations of the petitioner and the fact that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner, the present petition is accepted and the
[CRLMP-1774/2016]
(3 of 3)
impugned F.I.R., along with charge-sheet, qua the petitioner is, hereby, quashed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
ashok
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR and charge-sheet should be quashed against the petitioner who faced no specific allegations in a dispute with in-laws.
Whether the general and vague allegations in the FIR were sufficient to implicate the petitioner as his younger brother-in-law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sundar Babu & Ors. Vs State of Tamil NaduReferred¶21
Sundar Babu & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2087 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjay
State Of Rajasthan
Smt. Sunita Sharma
Kanwalsingh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
