Dismissed

Ramji Lal Meena S/O Late Shri Prabhati Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Dec 2023CRLMP/178/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of charges for 498A and 406 IPC. The court held that quashing is an exception, noted the lack of delay in filing, and emphasized that disputes involving streedhan and possession require trial on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition seeking quashing of charges under Sections 498A and 406 IPC dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.

Ramji Lal Meena S/O Late Shri Prabhati Lal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:38074]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 178/2022

¶4

Ramji Lal Meena S/o Late Shri Prabhati Lal Meena, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Plot No. 147, Shiv Gorshak Nagar, Modal Town, Malviya Nagar Jaipur.

¶5

Smt. Gulab Devi Wife Of Shri Ramji Lal Meena, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Plot No. 147, Shiv Gorshak Nagar, Modal Town, Malviya Nagar Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners/Accused

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶9

Respondent

¶10

Smt. Lajwanti Alias Teena D/o Shri Surgyan Singh Meena W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, aged about 30 years, R/o Plot No. 21, Ganesh Vihar A, Nadi Ka Fatak, Benad Road, Jaipur.

¶11

Respondent/Complainant

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishan Chander Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶14

Order

¶15

Reserved on 02/12/2023

¶16

Pronounced on 13/12/2023

¶17

By way of the instant petition, a challenge is made to the order impugned dated 30.11.2018, whereby the order dated 18.08.2018, wherein charges were framed against the petitioners under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, has been upheld in revision.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant/respondent-Smt. Lajwanti lodged FIR No. 29/2017 at Police Station-Mahil Thana Jaipur (West) for the offence under Sections 498A, 406, 419, 420, 427, 120B of IPC

[CRLMP-178/2022]

[2023:RJ-JP:38074]

(2 of 7)

and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Thereafter, pursuant to investigation, the petitioners were chargesheeted for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Consequently, charges were framed against the petitioners, vide order dated 18.08.2018, under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. Being aggrieved of the said framing of charges, the petitioners preferred a revision petition. However, vide order impugned dated 30.11.2018, the charges so framed under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, were maintained and the revision was dismissed. As a result, the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for the quashing of the orders dated 30.11.2018 and 18.08.2018 and the consequent, cancellation of charges framed against the petitioners.

¶23

In this background, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order impugned is ex-facie perverse and has been passed in contravention of the material available on record. To elucidate upon the said contention, following grounds have been raised, enumerated herein-under:-

¶24

3.1 That marriage between the complainant/respondent-Smt. Lajwanti and the only son of the petitioners-Rajesh was solemnized on 24.02.2014.

¶25

3.2 Since before the solemnization of the said marriage, the petitioners i.e. mother in-law and father-in-law of the complainant/respondent, have been residing in Gujarat. They have

[2023:RJ-JP:38074]

[CRLMP-178/2022]

(3 of 7)

not resided with the respondent/complainant, except on their annual visits to Jaipur.

¶30

3.3 The complainant/respondent was never keen to establish familial relations with the petitioners as well as their son i.e. husband-Rajesh and therefore, on the pretext of obtaining a divorce and harassing the petitioners, the complainant/respondent has concocted a false narrative and maliciously implicated the petitioners. The said fact is corroborated by the fact that the complainant/respondent has already obtained divorce from her husband-Rajesh from the Meena Community Panchayat on 13.08.2018.

¶31

3.4 That in the FIR No. 29/2017, no specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners, thereby exhibiting that the allegations so levelled are false and fabricated.

¶32

3.5 That in pursuance to an agreement dated 11.12.2015, the petitioners have executed a gift deed in favour of the complainant/respondent, wherein the subject property was a shop. Therefore, contrary to the claims of the complainant/respondent, no offence as alleged by the charges so framed, is made out.

¶33

3.6 That reliance was also placed on the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: Criminal Appeal No. 1457/2015 .

¶34

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the charge-sheet dated 28.04.2017 as well as the contents of the FIR No. 29/2017 and has submitted that the charges against the

(4 of 7)

[2023:RJ-JP:38074]

[CRLMP-178/2022]

petitioners have been framed in conjunction with the allegations so leveled and the corroborative material available on record. Therefore, no interference with the order impugned is called for.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

¶40

At the outset, it is made clear that exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is an exception and not the Rule and it is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. Therefore, whilst exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Ramveer Upadhyay and Anr. vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2044 and State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Maroti reported in Criminal Appeal No. 1874 of 2022 .

¶41

For ready reference, the relevant extract of the order impugned is reproduced herein-under:

¶42

“ lquk x;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶43

izLrqr izdj.k ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd ifjokfn;k yktoUrh mQZ Vhuk }kjk ,d izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 29@2017 ntZ djokbZ xbZ] ftlesa mlds }kjk llqj o lkl fuxjkuhdkj jkethyky o xqykc nsoh rFkk mlds iq= jkts”k dqekj tksfd ifjokfn;k dk ifr gS ds }kjk ngst ds fy;s mls “kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld :ils izrkfM+r fd;s tkus] de ngst ykus o ?kfV;k ngst gksus rFkk mlds ifr jkts”k dk vU; fdlh yM+dh ds lEcU/k gksus] rkuk ekjus vkfn rF;ksa dk mYys[k djrs gq;s ntZ djokbzZ xbZ] ftlij iqfyl Fkkuk efgyk Fkkuk if”pe] t;iqj }kjk ckn vuqla/kku fuxjkuhdkj o muds iq= jkts”k eh.kk ds f[kykQ /kkjk 498,] 406 Hkk0n0la0 ds rgr vkjksi i=

(5 of 7)

[2023:RJ-JP:38074]

[CRLMP-178/2022]

U;k;ky; esa is”k fd;k x;k gSA ftlij cgl pktZ lquh tkdj fuxjkuhdkj jkethyky o xqykc nsoh dks /kkjk 498,] 406 Hkk0n0la0 ds rgr vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus ds vkns”k fnukad 18&08&2018 dks ikfjr fd;s gSaA

¶48

ftlds lEcU/k esa fo}ku vf/koDrk fuxjkuhdkj dh vksjls eq[;rkSj ij ;g nyhy jgh gSfd ifjokfn;k }kjk tks izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZ xbZ gS] mlesa Hkh fuxjkuhdkj ds fo:) dksbZ fof”k’V dR; of.kZr ugha fd;s x;s gS] cfYd lkekU; dFku fd;s x;s gS] ifjokfn;k o mlds xokgku }kjk vUos’k.k ra= ds le{k tks c;ku fn;s x;s gS] muesa ngst dh ek¡x ckcr~ dksbZ rkjh[k] ekg o o’kZ of.kZr ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk jkethyky o xqykc nsoh ds fo:) ngst dh ek¡x djus o izrkfMr djus ds lEcU/k esa dFku ugha fd;s x;s gSA fuxjkuhdkj jkethyky o’kZ 1992 ls xqtjkr jkT; esa dsUnzh; mRikn ,oa lhek “kqYd foHkkx esa dk;Zjr gS rFkk jkethyky o xqykc nsoh nksuksa gh o’kZ 1992 ls xqtjkr jkT; esa gh jgokl djrs gS] os vius iq= jkts”k ds fuokl t;iqj esa jgokl ugha djrs gS] ;nk dnk gh t;iqj vkrs gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k izekf.kr ugha gSA pwWfd izdj.k pktZ ds Lrj ij gS blfy;s vkjksi ds Lrj ij U;k;ky; dks dsoy ek= izFke n’V;k ns[kuk gksrk gSfd i=koyh ij vfHk;kstu dh vksjls ladfyr lk{; ,oa nLrkostkr ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) vkjksi curk gS vFkok ugha\ bl lEcU/k esa i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izFke n’V;k ;g nf”kZr gSfd xSjfuxjkuhdkj o mlds iq= vfHk;qDr jkts”k }kjk ifjokfn;k dks ngst dh ekWx dks ysdj izrkfMr fd;k x;k gS rFkk mldk l=h/ku tksfd muds ikl U;Lr Fkk dks mUgksusa ekWxus ij Hkh ugha ykSVkdj vius mi;ksx miHkksx esa ysdj leifjofrZr dj nqfoZfu;ksx djrs gq;s vkijkf/kd U;klHkax fd;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns”k dk ifj”khyu djus ls Hkh ;g gh izdV gksrk gSfd vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; us i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{; dks ifj”khyu djrs gq;s izdj.k esa xSjfuxjkuhdkj o vfHk;qDr jkts”k dqekj ds fo:) /kkjk 498,] 406 Hkk0n0la0 ds vijk/k dk vkjksi izFke n’V;k cuuk ik;k gSA vr% fuxjkuhdkj }kjk mBk;h x;h vkifRr;ka o rdZ izdj.k ds bl Lrj ij lkjghu gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fuxjkuh vkjksi fojfpr djus ds vkns”k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS mlesa dksbZ voS/krk ;k vfu;ferrk ugha gS vkSj uk gh vkns”k v;qfDr;qDr gS vkSj mlesa dksbZ gLr{ksi dk vk/kkj ugha gSA ”

¶49

Considering that the contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C are well defined and that the Courts while exercising the said jurisdiction, ought not to enter the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint and that the said power must be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, this Court in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, deems it appropriate to dismiss the present petition, on the following grounds read cohesively, namely:-

¶50

8.1 That the impugned order dated 18.18.2018 was challenged in the year 2022 before this court without any explanation of delay;

[2023:RJ-JP:38074]

[CRLMP-178/2022]

(6 of 7)

8.2 That the reasoning furnished by the court below by way of the order impugned is well justified, wherein it is noted that at the stage of formulation of charges, the offence as alleged is required to be seen on a prima facie basis, in conjunction with the material available on record. In this regard, the factum of the petitioners possessing the streedhan of the respondent/complainant, despite the latter having expressly demanded its return, is noteworthy. Furthermore, the fact that akin disputes arose between the parties on previous occasions as well, is prima face explained by the formulation of the agreement dated 11.12.2015, pursuant to which, a shop was gifted to the respondent/complainant by the petitioners.

¶55

8.3 That the ground raised by the petitioners qua the petitioner residing in Gujarat cannot be countenanced as it is admitted by the petitioners that they frequented Jaipur and resided with their son and the complainant/respondent.

¶56

8.4 That the reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhishek (Supra) is misplaced, as in the said case, the Court while quashing the criminal proceedings, took into consideration the factum of delay in filing the complaint i.e. right prior to the institution of divorce proceedings by the husband, in conjunction with the fact that the in-laws of the complainant resided in a different city. However, in the present case, it is an admitted fact that the complaint so filed by the complainant/respondent-Smt. Lajwanti was with no delay. Moreover, it is also an admitted fact that the petitioners

(7 of 7)

[CRLMP-178/2022]

[2023:RJ-JP:38074]

frequented Jaipur and resided with the complainant/respondentSmt. Lajwanti. Moreover, the factum of the persistent possession of streedhan with the petitioners in conjunction with the execution of the agreement dated 11.12.2015 further calls for production of evidence and adjudication of the matter, on merits.

¶61

8.5 That whether the allegations in the complaint so filed by the complainant/respondent-Smt. Lajwanti are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Therefore, at this stage, the court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482 with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize the FIR and chargesheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception.

¶62

Therefore, in light of the observations made hereinabove, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶63

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶64

JKP/469

Ramji Lal Meena S/O Late Shri Prabhati Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramji Lal Meena S/O Late Shri Prabhati Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

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

Sayyad Mohammad Yameen Hashmi S/O Shri Sayyad Mohammad Anees Hashmi Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Lal S/O Ganga Sahay, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijendra Singh Bhati S/O Shri Kaan Singh Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Vaibhav Mishra S/O Shri D.K. Mishra B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Devesh Saini S/O Laxman Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Son of Rajpal Vs State of Rajasthan