Disposed¶31

Jeetu Son of Ramcharan, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 May 2025CRLMP/2398/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise between parties; Section 528 BNSS petition; FIR No. 56/2025, P.S. Pachewar, District Tonk; Sections 80(2), 85, 3(5) and 108 BNS; no prima facie offence made out; Investigating Officer factual report; no dowry demand; suicide after marital dispute; compromise dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure-2); Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 relied on; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench; Praveer Bhatnagar J.; order dated 02/05/2025; CRLMP 2398/2025; [2025:RJ-JP:18636].

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 56/2025 (P.S. Pachewar, District Tonk) and all subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom quashed; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶31

Jeetu Son of Ramcharan, Vs State of Rajasthan — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:18636]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2398/2025

¶4

Jeetu Son Of Ramcharan,

¶5

Ramcharan Son Of Pokar,

¶6

Magal Son Of Ramcharan,

¶7

Ramjilal Son Of Ramcharan,

¶8

Indra Son Of Ramcharan, Resident Of Power House, Pachewar, Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶12

Ragav Son Of Sambu, Resident Of Sameliya, Phagi, Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Ratan Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Deepak Sharma Mr. Ashish Kumar, C.O. Malpura, IO

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶16

Order

¶17

02/05/2025

¶18

The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the FIR No. 56/2025 registered with police station Pachewar, District Tonk for the offences under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of BNS.

¶19

Pursuant to the order dated 25.04.2025, the Investigating officer Mr. Ashish Kumar is present in person before the court and submitted the factual report. The same is taken on record.

¶20

It is stated by Investigating Officer that prima facie offence under Section 80(2) is not made out against the petitioners. The

[2025:RJ-JP:18636]

[CRLMP-2398/2025]

(2 of 3)

police after investigation did not find commission of offence against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 for the offences under Section 85 and 3(5) of BNS. It is further stated that against petitioner No. 1 Jeetu offences under Section 108 and 85 of the BNS is made out. It is also stated that deceased committed suicide after having dispute with her husband (Petitioner No. 1). There is no evidence to the fact that soon before the death of the deceased petitioners harassed the deceased and instigated her which resulted into her suicidal death and in the PMR no injuries were found at the body of the deceased. Investigating officer has also admitted the fact that there was no demand of dowry by the petitioners.

¶25

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that qua petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, no case is made out and they were exonerated, with regard to petitioner No. 1, the father of the deceased Raghav (Respondent No.2) has entered into compromise and there is no evidence to the fact that soon before the death, deceased was subjected to cruelty or she was instigated by the petitioner No.1, which resulted into her suicide. The compromise entered between the parties is placed on record as Annexure-2, therefore considering the above facts, the FIR lodged against the petitioners may be quashed.

¶26

Respondent No. 2 Raghav is present in person before the court, represented by his counsel Mr. Deepak Sharma.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Raghav has admitted that he has entered into compromise with all the petitioners and executed a compromise on 09.04.2025, which bears his signatures and he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶28

Heard and perused the material available on the record.

¶29

[2025:RJ-JP:18636]

¶30

[CRLMP-2398/2025]

¶31

Prima facie offences under Section 108 of BNS is not made out against the petitioner No. 1 and police did not find commission of offence against the other petitioners i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, for the offence under Section 80(2) and 3(5) of BNS. Therefore in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012)10 SCC 303, this court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR No. 56/2025 registered with police station Pachewar, District Tonk and all subsequent criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR.

¶32

Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of.

¶33

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶34

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR)J

¶35

ashu /89

Jeetu Son of Ramcharan, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetu Son of Ramcharan, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar S/O Sh. Sardara Ram Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Todi Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramprakash @ Prakash Son of Shri Mangi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Kumar Choudhary Son of Late Shri Ramnath, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaushalya Devi W/O Mahendra Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pushkar Saini S/O Makhanlal Saini, Vs the State of Rajasthan