Dismissed

Rahul Jindal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2024CRLMP/4303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought quashing of an FIR alleging dowry harassment and cruelty. Petitioners 2 and 3 withdrew; qua the husband-petitioner, the court declined to exercise inherent powers to quash the FIR at a nascent stage of investigation and directed him to join investigation with protection from coercive action subject to prior notice.

What did the court decide?

Qua petitioner No.1: direction to join investigation; no coercive action subject to cooperation, with 30 days' prior notice under S.41-A CrPC/S.35 BNSS if custodial interrogation warranted.

Rahul Jindal Vs State of Rajasthan — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:32900]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4303/2024

¶4

Rahul Jindal S/o Shri Girish Jindal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ashapurna Society, Industrial Area, Pali

¶5

Girish Jindal S/o Shri Gordhan Lal Jindal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ashapurna Society, Industrial Area, Pali

¶6

Smt. Santosh Jindal W/o Shri Girish Jindal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ashapurna Society, Industrial Area, Pali

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

Smt. Neelam W/o Shri Rahul Jindal, D/o Shri Lakhanlal, R/o Agrawal Colony, Balotra, Police Station Balotra, Tehsil And District Balotra.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Kamal Singh.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Gaurav Singh,PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶14

Order

¶15

07/08/2024

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw the present petition qua petitioners No.2 & 3.

¶17

Dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioners No.2 & 3 with liberty to refile the same with better particulars.

¶18

Quashing of FIR No.168/2024, dated 03.05.2024, for the alleged offences committed under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 377, 406 & 504 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at P.S. Balotra, Distt. Balotra is sought herein, qua petitioner No.1. 4. The complainant filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Balotra alleging inter-alia that she got

[2024:RJ-JD:32900]

[CRLMP-4303/2024]

(2 of 3)

married with the petitioner on 25.04.2021 and her parents gave ornaments, household goods and Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, which were taken from her by her mother-in-law. One day, her husband entered in the room in drunkard stage and forced himself on her. She was also subjected to harassment and cruelty for dowry. The Superintendent of police has forwarded the complaint to the concerned police station, under Section 154(3) for investigation, where the FIR in question was registered for the alleged offences. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation being at a very nascent stage and without awaiting outcome thereof, no interference is warranted to quash the FIR as the truth will unravel only after the investigation is carried out. In case no offence is made out against the petitioners, a negative FR then shall be prepared and filed before the competent court.

¶23

Having heard the arguments and after perusal of case file, I do not find it a fit case to exercise inherent powers to quash the FIR.

¶24

Reference may be had to Apex Court judgment rendered in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr (2014) 8 SCC 273] .

¶25

In the premise, The petitioner No.1 is directed to join the investigation, and subject to that, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, if during the investigation, the Investigating Officer finds that the petitioner No.1 is not cooperating or there is any incriminating material sufficient enough to warrant his custodial interrogation, then a 30 days'

¶26

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4303/2024]

¶27

[2024:RJ-JD:32900]

¶28

prior notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. (now Section 35 of BNSS) shall be given to him so as to enable him to seek legal remedy in accordance with law.

¶29

Disposed of accordingly.

¶30

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶31

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶32

65-Rmathur/-

Rahul Jindal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Jindal 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

Dhapu Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Mahadev Iet and Tiles Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mariam Khatun Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Borana Vs State of Rajasthan

Chetan Das Vs State of Rajasthan