Complainant graphically described the acts of physical and mental cruelty hence FIR not quashed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR
Kamla & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
(S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1874/2010)
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Date of Order :- April 08, 2011
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN
Mr.Suresh Sahni, for the petitioners.
Mr.Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor.
Mr.Rajesh Kapoor, for respondent No.2.
BY THE COURT:
The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR, FIR No.147/2010, registered at Mahila Thana (North), Jaipur for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.
Briefly the facts of the case are that Smt. Jyoti Sharma, respondent No.2, was married to Kuldeep Sharma, petitioner No.5, on 02.12.2009 according to the Hindu customs and rites. According to Smt. Jyoti Sharma, at the time of her marriage, her parents had given sufficient dowry as per their capabilities. However, when Smt. Jyoti Sharma reached her matrimonial home, both her husband and her in-laws’, including both of her sister-in-laws, namely Komal and Alka, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 respectively, started physically and mentally torturing her for dowry. Unable to bear their cruel behavior, eventually on 13.09.2010, Smt. Jyoti Sharma filed a complaint before the Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate No.13, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint for further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Mahila Thana (North), Jaipur. On the basis of the said complaint, the police chalked out a formal FIR, FIR No.147/2010, for the aforementioned offences. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Suresh Sahni, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, the FIR is a counter-blast to a civil suit filed by Mr. Gopal Lal Sharma, petitioner No.2, the father-in-law of the complainant, wherein he had clearly pleaded that he is willing to return the stridhan. Therefore, direction should be issued to the complainant to collect the stridhan. The filing of the civil suit by the father-in-law clearly establishes his fairness in wanting to return the stridhan to Smt. Jyoti Sharma. Secondly, the FIR is a counter-blast to the divorce petition filed by Kuldeep Sharma against Smt. Jyoti Sharma. Thirdly, all the family members have been roped in, including two sister-in-laws. This clearly shows that the FIR has been lodged to wreak personal vendetta. Lastly, relying on the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [(2010) 7 SCC 667], the learned counsel has contended that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that the cases under Sections 498A and 406 IPC are more or less frivolous cases. Therefore, even this Court should be alive to the possibility that the case is a frivolous one. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kapoor, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, has strenuously argued that the jurisdiction of this Court for interfering in investigation is extremely limited. According to him, in case the allegations levelled in the FIR make out the commission of a cognizable offence committed by known or unknown persons, then this Court is preempted from interfering in the investigation. Secondly, the allegations levelled by Smt. Jyoti Sharma do make out a prima facie case against all the petitioners including the sister-in-laws. The complainant has not only given details of the incidents, but has also graphically described the circumstances to which she was subjected to. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, this Court should not interfere with the FIR. Mr. Laxman Meena, the leaned Public Prosecutor, has adopted the arguments of Mr. Kapoor.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the FIR.
It is, indeed, a settled position of law that the investigation is the sphere of the police. It is equally well settled that in case the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken to be true and are taken to be un-rebutted, and if the allegations make out commission of the offence then this Court should not interfere with such a FIR in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Ref. to State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. (AIR 1992 SC 604)]. A bare perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that Smt. Jyoti Sharma has graphically described the acts of physical and mental cruelty committed against her by all the petitioners. Thus, prima facie offences under Sections 406 and 498A IPC are made out against the petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR No.147/2010, registered at Mahila Thana (North), Jaipur for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. Thus, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.
(R.S. CHAUHAN) J.