Disposed

Mukesh S/O Prahlad B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Nov 2025CRLMP/419/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In-laws sought quashing of cognizance for offences including 498A and 406 IPC based on dowry-harassment FIR. Court found specific allegations only against husband and brother-in-law; general allegations and retraction by complainant against others led to quashing cognizance against petitioners Nos.2 to 5.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order dated 07.12.2019 quashed qua petitioners Nos.2 to 5; cognizance against Sunil Kumar and Mukesh Kumar maintained.

Mukesh S/O Prahlad B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:45341]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.419/2020

¶4

Mukesh S/o Prahlad, R/o Village Sokhar, Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar, Raj.

¶5

Pralad S/o Durjan, R/o Village Sokhar, Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar, Raj.

¶6

Meera D/o Prahlad, W/o Ramesh Chand, R/o Village Vijaypura, Poorani Chungi, Agra Road, Jaipur, Raj.

¶7

Suman D/o Prahlad, W/o Mukesh Kumar Sharma, R/o Rampura Gate, Raja Ka Bagh, Basuwa, District Dausa, Raj.

¶8

Shanti W/o Prahlad, R/o Village Sokhar, Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar, Raj.

¶9

----Accused/Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

Rajni W/o Sunil, D/o Hetram, R/o Village Sokhar, Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar, Raj., at present R/o Dhola Kuwan, Kaman, Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur, Kaman, Raj.

¶14

----Complainant/Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Satyendra Singh Tanwar Mr. Shiv Kumar Jangid Mr. Karan Sharma Mr. Rajesh Goswami
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Ms. Muskan Verma with Ms. Palak Sinha &
		Mr. Anuj Rohila on behalf of
		Mr. Rajeev Surana, Sr. Advocate

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶17

Order

¶18

10/11/2025

¶19

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 23.04.2019 passed by the

[2025:RJ-JP:45341]

[CRLMP-419/2020]

(2 of 12)

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kaman, District-Bharatpur, whereby while deciding the revision petition filed by the respondent-complainant, directions were given to the trial Court for passing a fresh order on the question of taking cognizance against the petitioner. Further, the petitioners have also challenged subsequent order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kaman, Bharatpur, whereby cognizance of offence under Sections 498A, 406, 354, 323, 325 & 147 of IPC has been taken.

¶24

Initially vide order dated 11.02.2020, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court issued notice to the complainant-respondent and also granted interim order in favour of the petitioners to the effect that the learned Court below shall not proceed qua the petitioners.

¶25

However, after hearing the complainant, vide order dated 07.10.2023, the interim order earlier granted on 11.02.2020 was vacated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶26

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.13725/2023, which was although dismissed, yet this Court was request by the Hon'ble Apex Court to dispose of the petition within a period of four weeks.

¶27

In the light of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an interim application was filed by the petitioners for early listing of the instant miscellaneous petition, which was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2023 and the petition was listed on 08.01.2024. On that day, counsels appearing for the parties

[CRLMP-419/2020]

[2025:RJ-JP:45341]

(3 of 12)

submitted that to explore possibility of amicable settlement of dispute between the parties, the petition be referred to the mediation centre. Accordingly, the dispute was referred to mediation centre. However, the effort of mediation for amicable settlement did not succeed.

¶32

On 25.04.2025, parties were directed to remain personally present before this Court on 29.04.2025, the proceedings were conducted in camera trial. Thereafter, on 14.05.2025, following directions were given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court:

¶33

"7. Taking note of the submissions, consensus drawn between the parties, it is hereby directed as under:

¶34

7.1 Mr. Sunil-husband shall make arrangements for a proper accommodation near his residence at Kathumar, for his wife and children for an initial period of three months. The aforementioned direction be complied within a period of fifteen days from the date of passing of this order;

¶35

7.2 The complainant-wife is directed to reunite the father and children. Parties to make endeavour to arrange get-together at least on weekends and if possible during week days also. The same may be planned as per the mutual convenience of the parties.

¶36

8. Howsoever, if any dispute or discrepancies arise during the said period, appropriate application can be moved by the concerned counsel. If any such application is received, the same be listed before this Court expeditiously.

¶37

9. List the matter in the first week of September, 2025.

¶38

10. It is noted that the husband of the complainant – Shri Sunil is not a party to the present litigation and the petitioners herein are the in-laws of the complainant. However, taking note of the fact that the husband has already marked presence before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to implead husband of the complainant – Shri Sunil s/o Shri Prahlad as a party to the present petition.

¶39

11. In the meantime, any civil/criminal proceedings qua either of the parties or the family members shall put to a halt and no coercive action shall be taken against either of the party-sides and the husband of the complainant."

(4 of 12)

[2025:RJ-JP:45341]

[CRLMP-419/2020]

However, the efforts made by this Court time and again for conciliation between the parties, and to explore the possibility of amicable settlement went futile as the attempt to reunite the father and children remained failed.

¶44

Originally, husband of the complainant was not party in the instant petition, however pursuant to order dated 14.05.2025, he was also impleaded as party to the petition. After remaining unsuccessful in conciliation, on joint request made by learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard on merits.

¶45

Brief facts giving rise to the petition are that marriage of complainant with accused/petitioner-Sunil Kumar took place on 19.02.2011, however, immediately after marriage, the disputes came to surface, which resulted in lodging of FIR by the complainant bearing No.546/2015 registered at Police StationKaman, District-Bharatpur on 06.09.2015. In the FIR, it has been alleged by the complainant that although at the time of her marriage, lot of dowry articles as well as cash amount was given by her parents, yet her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and started harassing the complainant for demand of dowry. Although, she informed with regard to harassment to her parents, yet in order to preserve domestic harmony and marital bond, they asked the complainant to have patience. It was alleged by the complainant that time and again, she was beaten brutally by her husband and in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry and was treated in quite indignified manner. Specific allegations were also levelled in the FIR that her brother-in-law, Mukesh Kumar harboured ill intentions and used to cast an illicit

[2025:RJ-JP:45341]

[CRLMP-419/2020]

(5 of 12)

eye upon the complainant and further attempted to force her into physical relations, which she refused. On 19.03.2015, the brotherin-law of the complainant again caught hold of complainant and attempted to forcibly establish physical relations. When she shouted for help in self-defence, all the petitioners severely beat her causing multiple injuries on her body. Based on her complaint, the police registered FIR and started investigation.

¶50

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that there are general, vague and omnibus allegations in the FIR against the petitioners, which is nothing but consequence of complainant's dissatisfaction with marriage. No specific allegation has been levelled against any of the accused, so as to make out any cognizable offence against them. It was further submitted that during the additional statements of the complainant herself, she has stated that the allegations against sisters-in-law (petitioners No.3 & 4) have been levelled by the complainant in quite impulsive manner, whereas no cruelty whatsoever has ever been committed by her in-laws (petitioners No.3 & 4).

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there are general allegations against petitioner No.2 (father-inlaw) and petitioner No.5 (mother-in-law) and examination of the contents of FIR would clearly make out a case of false implication of the entire family. He also submits that initially vide order dated 04.08.2018, cognizance was taken by the learned trial Court for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323 & 325 of IPC against the husband-Sunil Kumar of the complainant, however, the order

(6 of 12)

[2025:RJ-JP:45341]

[CRLMP-419/2020]

dated 04.08.2018 was challenged by the complainant before the Revisional Court, where directions were given to hear the matter afresh and order dated 04.08.2018 was quashed. In the light of order passed by the Revisional Court, although fresh hearing was given to the learned trial Court and yet without there being any different and additional material, cognizance has been taken against all the accused-petitioners for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 325 and 147 of IPC.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that while taking cognizance, learned Court below has ignored the relevant material including the statements recorded during the investigation by the police authorities including the statements of independent witnesses like neighbours of the petitioners, whereas it was incumbent on the part of the learned trial Court to examine the entire record and to pass appropriate orders only after proper application of mind. It is further submitted that the statements given by one Lala Ram, who was President of Brahmo Samaj and was part of conciliation proceedings, which shows that father of complainant was adamant for taking Rs.25 lakhs for entering into compromise, which makes it clear that the entire story has been concocted by the complainant only to extort money from the petitioners, thus, the prosecution against the petitioners is for ulterior motive and FIR has been lodged maliciously against the petitioners.

¶57

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the present petition and submitted that order of taking cognizance is a revisable order but

(7 of 12)

[2025:RJ-JP:45341]

[CRLMP-419/2020]

instead of filing a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners have directly approached this Court, hence, in the light of availability of alternative remedy, the instant petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

¶62

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that bare perusal of the contents of FIR would reveal that the complainant was dealt with quite brutally only for not satisfying the demand of dowry and she was beaten in cruel manner by all the members of her in-laws family including her husband. It is also submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR cannot be said to be general in nature, rather specific dates have been given in the FIR revealing the incident of beating given by her in-laws as well as the incidents of outraging her modesty by her brother-in-law (Mukesh Kumar) with intent to satisfy his illicit desire.

¶63

Learned counsel for the complainant drew indulgence of this Court over the injury report of the complainant, which clearly reflects more than ten injuries on her body inflicted by her in-laws and further submits that collective assessment of the contents of FIR, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., injury report and other material was sufficient for the learned trial Court to take cognizance against the petitioners for the offences committed by them, hence, prayer has been made to dismiss the present petition.

¶64

I have carefully heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

(8 of 12)

[2025:RJ-JP:45341]

[CRLMP-419/2020]

Fundamental principles for taking cognizance by the Magistrate are that he is required to examine the contents of FIR/complaint along with the material available on record including the investigation conducted by the police authorities and after conjoint reading of such material, in case, prima facie cases are made out against any person of committing cognizable offence, only then cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate. It is also a settled proposition of law that cognizance cannot be taken in mechanical manner, as order of taking cognizance bears serious consequences.

¶69

I have examined the contents of the FIR, statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. produced before the Court by learned Public Prosecutor and the injury report of the complainant along with other materials. The statements coupled with allegations in FIR would reveal that the allegations of giving beatings and causing mistreatment as well as cruelty is quite specific against husband (Sunil Kumar). Almost all the witnesses in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated that the husband used to beat the complainant after marriage and the result of such beatings on 19.03.2015 is reflected from perusal of injury report of the complainant, where she has also sustained fracture in her hand. However, so far as petitioners No.2 & 5 (father-in-law & mother-in-law respectively) are concerned, the allegations are quite general in nature and no specific overt act has been assigned to them. As regards petitioners No.3 & 4 (sisters-in-law), the complainant herself in her additional statements ( titamba byan) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated

[2025:RJ-JP:45341]

[CRLMP-419/2020]

(9 of 12)

that their names were included in the FIR in quite thoughtless and erratic manner; whereas they did not commit any cruelty upon the complainant, nor did they demand any dowry from the complainant. Thus, in view of the additional statements given by the complainant, no offence as alleged in the FIR is made out against the petitioners No.3 & 4.

¶74

In the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2022 AIR SC 820, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where there are general omnibus allegations in FIR under Section 498A of IPC, in absence of any specific role attributed to the accused, it would be unjust for the accused to be forced to undergo the vexatious trial on the basis of such non-specific sweeping allegations in the FIR.

¶75

In the matter of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023 (20) SCC 194, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a matter, where criminal proceedings have been challenged, has observed that if the proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, can be quashed while exercising inherent jurisdiction.

¶76

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2010 (7) SCC 667 was dealing with a case, wherein an FIR under Section 498A of IPC, entire family was roped in without assigning any specific role, and such proceedings were put to challenge before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex

[2025:RJ-JP:45341]

[CRLMP-419/2020]

(10 of 12)

Court observed that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide, however, it should be exercised carefully to see that the decision in exercise of power is based on sound principles and for advancement of justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that it has been a matter of common experience that most of the complaints under Section 498A of IPC are filed in heat of the moment with ulterior motives by impleading the relatives of husband and exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in large number of complaints, therefore, such relatives, who have got no direct involvement in the incident and to whom nothing specific has been assigned can be saved by quashing the proceedings against them.

¶81

In the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. Vs. State of Telangana & Anr. reported in 2025 (3) SCC 735, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of implicating relatives of the husband for no good reasons and without attributing any specific role in the complaints under Section 498A of IPC.

¶82

So far as the objection taken by the complainant that since revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against order of taking cognizance, the petitioner cannot invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it would be relevant to refer the recent judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh & Ors. Vs. State

¶83

of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in SLP (Criminal) No.12354/2024 decided on 29.11.2024, whereby in the cases of abuse of process of law even after framing of the charge and

[2025:RJ-JP:45341]

[CRLMP-419/2020]

(11 of 12)

without approaching the Revisional Court, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been found maintainable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, in the instant case where the order of cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court after remand of earlier revision petition filed by the complainant, and in view of the fact that this petition was filed way-back in the year 2020, it would not be in the interest of justice to relegate the matter for being decided in a revision petition.

¶88

In the light of foregoing discussion, it can be deduced that from bare reading of FIR and other material available on record such as statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as produced by the learned Public Prosecutor, that there are specific allegations by referring to the date of incident against husband of the complainant-Sunil Kumar and brother-in-law (Mukesh Kumar), whereas there are general, vague and omnibus allegations specifying no role against the petitioners No.2 to 5 (father-in-law, mother-in-law & sisters-in-law) in the entire FIR and the complainant herself has stated before the police authorities that the sisters-in-law have never committed any cruelty, nor have demanded any dowry, therefore, under such circumstances, the cognizance taken by the by the learned trial Court vide order dated 07.12.2019 against petitioners No.2 to 5 is hereby quashed and set aside and so far as cognizance taken against husband of the complainant (Sunil Kumar) and her brother-in-law (Mukesh Kumar), is maintained as it is.

¶89

The learned Court below is directed to proceed further against accused Sunil Kumar and Mukesh Kumar in accordance

(12 of 12)

[CRLMP-419/2020]

[2025:RJ-JP:45341]

with law. It is made clear that any observations made in the instant petition are confined only to decide the instant criminal miscellaneous petition and shall not prejudice the trial proceedings in any manner whatsoever.

¶94

Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of.

¶95

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶96

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶97

DAKSH/1

Mukesh S/O Prahlad B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh S/O Prahlad B/C Brahmin 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

Badrilal S/O Sh. Kanhaiyalal Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Prithvi Raj Singh Rajput S/O Late Shri Narendra Singh @ Nathu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sumit Singhal S/O Shri Kishan Singhal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr D P Sharda Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Dr M R Songra Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Mamta Kuri W/O Shri Amit Kuri D/O Shri Maniram Inaniya Vs State of Rajasthan