In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the challenge against a revisional order upholding the rejection of a dowry harassment complaint. The Court held that the lower courts recorded material facts and had no illegality or perversity in their findings.
The miscellaneous petition and the stay petition were dismissed.
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.
[2023/RJJD/010220]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 678/2022
Raj Kumari W/o Sh. Giriraj Bhat, D/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bhat, R/o 3 B.l.m., Teh. Sri Vijay Nagar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Sunil Mehta |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Vikram Sharma,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
17/04/2023
Instant misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 31.07.2021 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision
[2023/RJJD/010220]
[CRLMP-678/2022]
(2 of 3)
petition and affirmed the order dated 30.05.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrat, Srivijaynagar, Sriganganagar rejecting the Complaint qua the respondents.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Srivijaynagar to the effect that petitioner's marriage took place with Giriraj on 23.07.2007 as per Hindu rites and a boy was born out of the wedlock. It is alleged that after marriage, the respondents started harassing the petitinoer for demand of dowry. therefore, the petitioner lodged FIR under Section 498A, 406, 307, 323, 420 and 120B IPC. Apart from this, the respondents instigated her husband to perform second marriage and all the accused persons were present there.
The learned court after recording the statement of the witnesses took cognizance only against Giriraj and rejected the complaint against other accused persons. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision petition which was allowed by the revisional court and matter was remanded back to consider the matter afresh. The learned trial court again rejected the complaint against the accused persons vide order dated 30.05.2017. The petitioner complainant preferred revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar which was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2021.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the material aspect of the matter, the trial court mechanically rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner against accused respondents. It is argued that on the basis of statement of the complainant and other witnesses, a prima facie case is clearly
[2023/RJJD/010220]
[CRLMP-678/2022]
(3 of 3)
made out against the accused respondents as the accused respondents also participated in the marriage ceremony. Therefore, it is prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.
Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned orders and submitted that both the courts below have discussed each and every aspect of the matter and have rightly rejected the complaint and revision petition respectively, which does not called for any interference.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned so also the record.
It is not disputed that after going thorough the entire material on record, the learned Magistrate has rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner against other accused persons as no prima facie case was made out. The revision petition filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, by way of a detailed order. In the opinion of this Court, no plausible ground exists for interfering with the impugned orders. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders dated 30.05.2017 & 31.07.2021. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed.
Stay petition is also dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
82-BJSH/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court erred in upholding the trial court's rejection of the dowry harassment complaint.
Whether a prima facie case was made out against the respondents for their involvement in dowry harassment.
6 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumari W/o Sh. Giriraj Bhat
State Of Rajasthan
Giriraj S/o Sh. Heera Lal
Heera Lal S/o Sh. Deva Ram
Parmeshwari Devi W/o Sh. Heera Lal
Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Heera Lal
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
