Ravindra Nath Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.:— This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of FIR No. 139/2015 of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC.

2. The impugned FIR has been registered at the instance of the complainant respondent No. 2, who happened to be the wife of the petitioner No. 1, daughter-in-law of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and sister-in-law of the petitioner No. 4.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has produced the case dairy, as per which, the police has not found involvement of petitioner No. 2 Mahendra Nath Sharma and petitioner No. 4 Smt. Jayanti in the commission of crime, however, as per the investigation conducted by the police, prima facie involvement of petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 is made out.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as a matter of fact, the Mahila Thana, Bhilwara has no jurisdiction to conduct the investigation into the allegations levelled in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2. It is contended that all the incidents of demand of dowry, causing hurt and breach of trust took place at Pune and not at Bhilwara, therefore, the police at Bhilwara has no jurisdiction to carry out the investigation into the allegations levelled in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are similar to the allegations levelled against the petitioner No. 3, however, when the police has not found involvement of petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 i.e the father-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant, it cannot be said that the petitioner No. 3 i.e the mother-in-law of the complainant is involved in the commission of crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore prayed that this criminal misc. petition may be allowed and the impugned FIR registered at Police Station Bhilwara be quashed as the Police at Bhilwara has no jurisdiction to investigate into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and argued that in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2, the specific allegations of commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 498-A and 323 IPC are levelled against the accused persons in respect of the incidents took place at Bhilwara only. It is contended that the petitioner No. 1 has visited several times at Bhilwara and there he demanded dowry from the respondent No. 2 and her parents. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that when the complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioner No. 1 and her in-laws demanded dowry and voluntarily causing hurt to the respondent No. 2 at Bhilwara, then the police at Bhilwara has jurisdiction to investigate the allegations levelled in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned FIR as well as the case diary.

7. In the complaint filed by the complainant respondent No. 2, there is a specific allegation to the effect that in January 2014, when she became pregnant, then the accused persons treated her with cruelty and her husband started beating and forcibly left her at Bhilwara. In the complaint, it is also alleged that after she gave birth to a baby child on 29th May, 2015, all the accused persons demanded dowry at Bhilwara.

8. It is to be noticed that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner No. 3, the mother-in-law in respect of any incident took place at Bhilwara, though the specific allegations of demand of dowry and beating are against the petitioner No. 1, which he allegedly had committed at Bhilwara. It is also to be noticed that the allegations against the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the complainant are similar in nature, however, the police has not found the case proved against father-in-law and the sister-in-law and the case of the petitioner No. 3, the mother-inlaw is similar to that of father-in-law and the sister-in-law of the complainant respondent No. 2.

9. Looking to the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no case for quashing of the FIR in respect of the petitioner No. 1, husband of the respondent No. 2 is made out. However, the FIR filed against the respondent No. 3, the mother-in-law of the complainant is liable to be quashed. As the police has concluded that no offence against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 is made out, therefore, no order is required to be passed in relation of them.

10. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is partly allowed. The impugned FIR qua the respondent No. 3 - Smt. Uma Sharma, the mother-in-law of the respondent No. 2 is quashed.

11. The police is free to proceed with against the petitioner No. 1, the husband of the respondent No. 2 in accordance with law.

12. However, it is made clear that the respondent No. 2 is free to avail appropriate remedy before the competent court, if she has any grievance by the final conclusion submitted by the police.