Dr. Mahendra Tatwade S/O Mr. Ram Prasad Tatwade, Vs State of Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.135/2023

Dr. Mahendra Tatwade S/o Mr. Ram Prasad Tatwade, Aged About 48 Years, Additiona Chief Medical Director, Divisional Hospital West Railway, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, R/o 256, Old Railway Colony, Road No. 12, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶7

Mrs. Pinky Verma W/o Dr. Mahendra Tatwade, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 33, Adarsh Colony, Khedli Phatak, Bheemganj Mandi, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vedant Sharma
	Mr. Kartik Sharma &
	Mr. Shivam Sharma for
	Mr. S.S. Hora
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Dhakar,PP

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

12/05/2026

¶13

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.163/2022 registered with the Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kota for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC and charge-sheet submitted in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR and the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with the respondent No.2 on 04.11.2003 and after 19 years of their marriage, the present FIR has been lodged on 04.05.2022. Learned counsel submits that the

¶15

[CRLMP-135/2023]

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are that not only the petitioner was harassing or torturing the complainant for dowry, but she was also subjected to beating, however, she has not sustained any injury. This fact has been admitted by the Investigating Officer when his statements were recorded during the course of the day. He further submits that the whole and sole purpose of the complainant-respondent No.2 was to get a sum of Rs.80,000/- and one house from the petitioner. When the aforesaid demand was not fulfilled, the instant FIR has been lodged with false and fabricated allegations. There is no truth behind the allegations levelled against the petitioner, hence, the impugned FIR and the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are liable to be quashed and set-aside. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

¶18

(1) Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. while deciding SLP

¶19

(Crl.) No.4044/2018 on 25.09.2024;

¶20

(2) Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs. State of

¶21

Gujarat reported in (2013) 10 SCC 48 ;

¶22

(3) Charul Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 476 ; and

¶23

(4) Shaikh Shaukat s/o Majit Patel and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. while deciding Criminal Application No.229/2022 by the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench on 18.01.2023.

¶24

[CRLMP-135/2023]

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent-complainant opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection about maintainability of the instant petition. He submits that on earlier occasion also, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing the S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.8766/2022 assailing the validity of the impugned FIR, but the said petition was withdrawn by him and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.10.2022. Learned counsel submits that now, the successive petition with regard to the same prayer is not maintainable before this Court in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.C. Ravikumar Vs. D.S. Velmurugan & Ors. while deciding Special Leave to Petition (Criminal) No.12715/2022 on 23.07.2025.

¶27

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶28

This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the complainant that the instant misc. petition is not maintainable as the earlier petition submitted by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. The order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.8766/2022 reveals that the aforesaid petition was not dismissed on its merits, but the same was withdrawn by the petitioner seeking liberty to file fresh petition, in case, any occasion so arises. After withdrawal of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner filed the instant petition challenging the impugned FIR as well as the proceedings arising out of the

¶29

[CRLMP-135/2023]

¶30

(4 of 5)

¶31

impugned FIR pending against the petitioner before the concerned Court. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to file a successive petition in light of the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶32

Now, this Court comes on the merits of the instant matter that after levelling several kind of allegations, the complainantrespondent has lodged an FIR against the petitioner, which was thoroughly investigated by the Investigating Agency and chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC.

¶33

At this stage i.e. while exercising inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not supposed to conduct fishing and roving enquiry to find out the truth behind the allegations and the correctness of the allegations levelled by the complainant. Looking to the fact that after thorough investigation in the instant matter, a prima facie case is found to be made against the petitioner. The Police has already submitted chargesheet and charges have been framed against the petitioner for the above stated offences and the trial is on going.

¶34

This Court is not going to meticulously examine the evidence and the statements of the witnesses. Certainly, this task would be undertaken by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage of the trial. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant criminal misc. petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to take all the grounds, which have been taken before this Court and all available defence at the appropriate stage of the trial before the Trial Court.

¶35

[CRLMP-135/2023]

¶36

(5 of 5)

¶37

With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶38

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶39

Karan/69

Dr. Mahendra Tatwade S/O Mr. Ram Prasad Tatwade, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Mahendra Tatwade S/O Mr. Ram Prasad Tatwade, 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

Bhuraram Choudhary S/O Late Shri Gangaram Choudhary, Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Gupta S/O Late Shri Bhanwar Mal Gupta, Vs State of Rajasthan

Premchand Son of Shri Devi Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajeev Tittal S/O Shri Jitendra Singh Tittal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Appu International Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Virendra Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Shivmurti Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan